About Coulomb barrier in LENR processes

Eugen Andreev

NPC «Nucleon», Kyiv, Ukraine

andeval@ukr.net

Abstract
A new physical basis is suggested, i.e. a new physical approach, to understanding nuclear physics
phenomena – anomalous heat release and nuclear transmutation (low energy nuclear reactions, or LENR) in
some metal hydrides, which is inexplicable from the point of view of classical nuclear physics. The main
reason for rejection of reality of LENR is the lack of ideas about the mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb
barrier by elementary nuclides, namely, protons. In modern physics there is the firm conviction based on the
vast empirical material that
a) the electromagnetic and nuclear interactions are of a different nature;
b) the field of electric charge (proton, electron) is spherically symmetric;
c) the nucleon-nucleon forces depend on the direction.
Within the framework of the Standard Model there are approaches providing the possibility of unification
of all types of interactions. As a rule, they are based on the discrete nature of all fundamental structural
entities, which forms the philosophical and methodological concept of "matter". But there is no general
consensus regarding the form of discrete nature of space-time yet.
In the paper, a hypothesis is suggested that the notion of the nuclear interaction could be interpreted as a
non-linear distribution of the electrostatic potential, which manifests itself at the Fermi scale.
An analytical form of the potential of the proton is proposed, which coincides with conventional forms
used in the nuclear physics at a short scale, but becomes the usual Coulomb potential at a large scale. The
Coulomb law is complicated in the following way:
1) a scale factor (it takes into account the discrete nature of space), which eliminates the divergence at zero;
2) a parameter of the deformability of the field potential leading to the appearance of three regions of the
charge density of different signs, which can be interpreted as quarks.
We emphasize that this is a purely static model for small distances. At a large distance it is transformed to
the known usual presentation when a fast three-axis rotation is switched on, which results in an average
spherical field. The model potential possesses a set of properties that could be called "nuclear van der Waals
forces." Using this model for describing the proton-proton interaction, one can see that in the Coulomb
barrier there are areas of mutual attraction, which leads to the formation of short-lived excited state 2He and
the launch of a single avalanche cascade of successive mergers of LENR process. The approach does not
pretend to completeness of the description, but it presents a new view at the internal structure of nucleons,
which manifests itself at the "zero" velocity of their relative motion. The possibility to use the model for the
description of LENR phenomena is analyzed.

Introduction
In our days, anomalies of hydrogenation of various media by hydrogen isotopes are reproduced more or
less confidently by hundreds of researchers in dozens of techniques. For the initial reading with the
phenomenon of LENR one can recommend a textbook by Storms [1]. An unbiased professional analysis of
features of LENR was done in a monograph by Ratis [2]. A list of various aspects of the problem is on the
site of L. Kowalskii [3]. Many excellent reviews of the current state of research presented in issues of the
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science [4].
For the model, the most important the following characteristic features of LENR:
1) catalytic nature involving different hydrogen isotopes;
2) emission of "strange" nuclear products;
3) preferred release of energy as heat.
The most difficult problem for the researchers of the phenomenon became an understanding of internal
mechanisms of LENR processes, which is absolutely necessary for the transition to industrial technologies.
It was necessary to explain specifics of conditions that initiate the fusion reaction, a mechanism to overcome
1
the Coulomb barrier, the physical nature of fusion, and the mechanism of energy transfer to the
environment. First of all it is important to understand which kind of the fundamental nuclear reactions is
realized in LENR: binary or many particle processes?
There has been published more than 300 models and hypotheses on the nature of low-energy nuclear
processes, but still no any clear understanding and satisfactory theoretical basis of the experimental results.
A review of the existing approaches is not the purpose of this paper; that is why we restrict ourselves to
referring to the leading theorists in this field [5-15].
Prejudice of the majority of nuclear physicists (both experimenters and theorists) to the LENR
phenomenon is first of all due to the notion of the primacy of the electric charge and the spherical symmetry
of a potential field created by the charge. When we talk about the charge, we mean that it is invariant,
discrete, and additive, subject to the law of conservation and can be created and annihilated.
However, difficulties emerge when we start to study the relationship between the charge and an electric
field, because these two components belong to the same entity known as the electromagnetic field. What is
primary and what is secondary – it's a known chicken and egg dilemma. For example, in the case of photons
we can see that in some times the field may exist "without charge".

How the concept of the "nuclear forces" and the "vectors of interaction" appeared
After the awareness that atomic nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons, the question arose about
the reasons for retention of particles with the same charge at short distances of the order of 1 fm (10-15 m).
Initially for α-particles and then with the development of accelerator technology and for protons there
were revealed anomalies in the scattering at energies above a certain critical value. The experimental
scattering characteristics observed deviations from the Rutherford formula, based solely on the strength of
the electrostatic interaction – the classical Coulomb's law

.
It was concluded that either the Coulomb law does not work at such short distances, or scientists
discovered a new kind of interaction in nature.
In the 1930s, physicists were at a dilemma to make an important methodological decision. They had
either to ignore the principle of the Occam's razor ("do not to produce essences without special
unnecessarily") and enter “the nuclear forces" or to try to clarify the Coulomb law. Heisenberg [16]
proposed to introduce "exchange forces" directly related to the concept of spin, which already was well
developed in atomic physics, though Yukawa [17] attempted to create a theory of the nuclear forces by
modifying the Coulomb law. He suggested that the strong interaction is carried out through a field similar to
the interaction between charges via the electromagnetic field. However, the strong interaction is
characterized by a very short radius of action, so instead of the Coulomb potential, he suggested to use a
potential that drops with distance by the exponential law:

(1)
where g is the constant that specifies the intensity of the nuclear interaction, k is the constant with the
dimension of inverse length defining the interaction radius. Note that the presence of the exponent in the
numerator simply reduces the electrostatic repulsion at short distances, but does not eliminate the problem of
infinity at zero. The introduction of the potential with the exponential part in the numerator did not solve the
problem of tensor nature of the interaction. With further development of the approach, mathematical
difficulties arose and the range of applicability of specific models was narrowed.
The phenomenological nucleon-nucleon potential [18] (even without the exchange members) has a fairly
complex form, when each term describes one of the components of total interaction

(2)
Radial components V j (r) are usually recorded as options of the potential (1) with the fitting coefficients.
The remaining terms describe the dependence of the nucleon spin, the relative orientation of the spin and
orbital moments. However, the general law of the nuclear forces is still not found. The nature of these forces
also remains unclear.
2
How to modify the law of Coulomb
Status of the modern theory of nuclear interactions is well illustrated by the quote of Gross [19] "We need
a theory that describes the structure of nucleons and nuclei with one basis. The structure of the nucleon
cannot be taken out of the brackets. "
Which properties of the nucleon-nucleon forces do we need to describe? First of all, we need to describe
their limited value (saturation), the behavior of the intensity at short distances and the tensor character. We
put forward a hypothesis that the anomaly of nucleon-nucleon scattering at short distances are caused by a
complex distribution of charge density, with the participation of the physical vacuum.
In other words, the Coulomb law is only the first term in the expansion of the capacity of non-point
elementary charge of a proton multipole.
The final (and most important) purpose is to show that the known reaction of the proton-proton cycle,
which theoretically is coming inside stars, can be implemented in the lattice of a solid at ordinary
temperatures.
To do this, we must first admit that:
1) mathematically correct and physically substantiated an integral representation of the potential as a
function of two parameters (r0 and β);
2) mathematically correct and physically justified the expansion of the Coulomb potential in powers 1/R on
the Fermi scale;
3) to eliminate the infinities , we can use the idea of a fundamental length of Heisenberg, r0 (discreteness of
the physical vacuum);
4) the known properties of the polarization of the physical vacuum can be interpreted as unequal axes, which
can be presented by a parameter β of deformability of the physical vacuum;
5) for the experimentally proved non-spherical distribution of charge density of the proton [20], there shall
be an attempt to describe the nuclear interaction in the framework of the proposed (electrostatic) approach.

Integral representation of the electrostatic potential

Recall the foundation of modern electrodynamics – the system of Maxwell's equations. Most simply
record of them can be done in the Gauss system in which for the vacuum ε = μ = 1:

(3a)
(3b)

  (3c)
(3d)
In the case of an electrostatic field, the following important cases will be important:
(4)
(5)
Let us come to the presentation that uses potentials. From equation (3) it is implies that to obtain the
amount of charge Q in a given volume, one must integrate the Laplacian of the potential:

  (6)
Here, the sign of the charge is included in the definition of Q, and the continuous (non-point) charge density
distribution allows us to calculate the effective charge for any arbitrary volume. Because
.
Coulomb's law can be written in integral form:

(7)

3
In the end, we have come to the equation for the potential with an arbitrary spatial distribution, which is
recorded in a conventional Cartesian coordinate system. Note that for the time being the distance from the
origin is written in the usual way

.
Let us ask ourselves, whether we can find so particular solution of the equation of such kind for the field
of the potential φ induced by the proton charge, which also satisfies the following conditions:
a) integral of the divergence of the field strength (the charge) is finite for any volume (no divergence at
zero and infinity);
b) integral of the square of the field strength (the energy density) is finite for any area of integration (no
divergence at zero and infinity, as these meanings do not correspond to reality).
Without loss of generality (for any potential distribution) we can expanse an arbitrary function in a
Taylor series in powers of 1/R. However, now the distance Rdd (x, y, z, β, r0) from the origin to the point of
interest is presented by an expression

  (8)
where x, y, z are the usual Cartesian coordinates; β is the parameter of space anisotropy along the axis z; r0
is the scale factor, or characteristic size, having a sense of the size of a discrete cell of the physical vacuum,
which does not penetrate potential.
In this case, the dimensionless of the two-parameter field potential of the distributed proton charge
becomes as bellow

(9)
The physical dimension of the potential [φ] is taken out of the brackets; the coefficients k1, k2, k3 have a
sense of intensities of each term. The first term is a "conventional" Coulomb's law when β = 1, and r0 = 0.
The second term will be treated as the nuclear force. The third and subsequent terms of the expansion can be
neglected. Whether is this true, you will see it later.
What caused such a choice of decomposition? The simplest way to eliminate the infinities in zero is the
introduction of a small positive term r0 in the denominator of Coulomb's law, which is negligible at a large
distance. The potential It could be written in the form

but then r0 would not be related to a distance in our reference frame. If we introduce r0 under the radical, this
emphasizes the role and participation of the physical vacuum in the formation of the proton field.
Similar arguments can be used regarding the parameter β, which is associated with the meaning of
"polarizability", "deformability" or the parameter of screening of the vacuum. The presence of such
characteristic, as the proton spin, raises a question about whether the directions in space are equivalent if we
put the Cartesian coordinate system into the "center" of the proton so that the Z-axis is oriented in the
direction of the spin. Although we can not talk about the rotation of the nucleon as a whole, however, looped
streams of a superfluid liquid in the nucleons (A. Bohr, JG Valatin1958) are real, and the neutral and
charged currents [21] should have a predominant component in a plane perpendicular to the axis Z. This
allows us to limit ourselves by asymmetry properties of the space only along one axis, namely, the Z-axis, as
shown in the expression (8). It is clear that when we put β = 1, and r0 = 0, we return to the classic recording
of Coulomb's law.
Thus, introducing into the integral equation for the potential the two characteristics of the physical
vacuum, we obtain an explicit analytic expression from which one can get some interesting consequences.
Let us rewrite equation (7) separating the individual dimension of the potential (volts). It the expression,
the constants k1 and k2 define the relationship between the electrostatic and nuclear members, as well as the
absolute value of the total energy of the field

. (10)
4
This potential distribution φ in the space provides the Coulomb dependence at distances much larger r0,
which removes any problem. It is clear that r0 must be comparable in scale to the "radius" of the elementary
charge (for example, a proton), which determines the limits of applicability of classical electrodynamics (r0
~ 10-16 m).
For simplicity and clarity we may put r0 = 1, k1 =1 (i.e., the constant electromagnetic interaction =1), this
simply means that the unit of the chosen scale is the average size of a discrete cell of space. The choice of
the coefficient k2 is a challenge. It is clear that it must be related to the ratio of the constants of nuclear and
electromagnetic interactions αs/αe. Let us write explicitly the vector components of the strength field using
equation (4):

 
(11)
The energy density at a point w[E](x,y,z,β,r0) is defined by the square of the electric intensity:

(12)
The total energy as a function of the parameter β is written as

(13)
Let us construct a graph of the dependence of the total energy of the electrostatic field (equivalent to the
field of a point charge) on the anisotropy parameter β of space.

Figure 1. The dependence of the total energy W of the electrostatic field on the anisotropy parameter β of
space.
This relationship is of fundamental importance. If the potential of the electrostatic field is not set strictly
by the electric charge (not "fixed" in space), it will be redistributed so that the total energy tends to a
minimum. It follows from expression (13) that the minimum is reached when β2=2. Let us find the energy
difference in the case of spherical and deformed field:

As can be seen, the gain in the free energy is quite significant, more than 5%. Thus, the electrostatic
potential is in some sense an independent physical reality, since the induced polarization of the physical
vacuum leads to a change in its spatial distribution and the formation of a well-defined state with the
minimum energy. The minimum of the total energy of the field indicates to the stability of such a state.
Strictly speaking, the heuristic part of our hypothesis is finished at this point. As a result, we have obtained
an explicit analytic form of the "electronuclear" potential of a proton putting taking k1 = 1 (k2 is a fitting
parameter); the physical dimension (volt) is omitted for simplicity:

(14)
where x, y, z are the usual Cartesian coordinates; r0 is the scale factor. What's new we can get out of this
expression? By setting specific numerical value (for example, k1 = 1 and k2 = 3), we can use the Maxwell
equations (3b) and (4-5), and obtain explicit expressions for the spatial distribution of the density of the
potential, the vector field strength, and also the energy density:

5
 , (15)

. (16)
Using the possibilities of the Maple mathematical package, it is not difficult to obtain the
abovementioned dependences and their isosurface three-dimensional representations. Hereinafter, the author
relies on the correct computer calculation, but would be very grateful for an independent check of the
outcome carried out by other methods and means.
The most interesting is the distribution of the charge. The total (observed) charge located near the center
is divided into three areas, the centers of which lie on the axis Z. Moreover, in the middle there is an area of
negative charge; the area of positive charge is concentrated on the periphery.

Figure 2. Three-dimensional view of isosurfaces of the charge density of the proton with the same positive
(peripheral region) and negative values of ρ = 0.03 (rel. units.). The length scale is in relative units, close to
1 Fermi. a – the distribution of the charge for the first term (k1 = 1); b – the distribution of the second term
(k2 = 3); c – the sum of the two distributions, ρ = ρ1 + ρ2.
Such picture is associated with a well-established fact of the existence of three quarks inside the proton
(u, d, u) with fractional charges +2/3, -1/3, +2/3, respectively. It should be emphasized that in the original
premises there we did not hypothecate the space partitioning into three areas with different signs of the
charge density. It happened automatically (!) under the condition of minimizing the total energy of the
system due to the deformation parameter β along the Z-axis.
If the model corresponds to reality at least in something, it becomes clear the appearance of the fractional
charges (e/3 and 2e/3) and the phenomenon of confinement. Of course, there are contradictions with the
idea of asymptotic freedom and quark moving relative to each other. In our model, they are rigidly fastened
as relative to each other and relative to the spin direction of the proton.
This fact is crucial for the emergence in the potential field a kind of a "tunnel" in which the repulsive
forces change sign.
A scheme of the linear arrangement of quarks was briefly discussed earlier [22], but did not receive
further development. It seems more physicality to define the arrangement not as "upper" and "lower", but
rather as "external" and "internal", respectively.
Ratios between values of positive and negative charges, given eventually by coefficients k1 and k2, have
to be advisable agreed with the quark model. To do this, we shall carefully calculate the total value of
charges in each of the areas.
As the driving force of any change in the system is the desire to minimize the energy, we have to consider
energetic characteristics of the field. Let us write an explicit expression for the energy density, assuming that
the energy density of our self-consistent field is also proportional to the square of the electrostatic field,

and the total energy

.
Calculating, we obtain at k2 = 3

6
 .
It is easy to see the integration over the entire space gives us just a number that can be normalized to the
experimental value of the proton mass.
The "shape" of the distributed objet in space is characterized by the surface of the same energy density
(the isoenergy surface) and its graphic representation has the form of an oblate ellipsoid. In this approach, a
"form" and "size" will be determined by the value of the chosen parameter.
With the analytical expressions for the energy density of the field at each point, it is easy to write down
the total energy of the interaction of two identical fields, placing them at a predetermined distance from each
other in a particular orientation. The total energy density w12 will be determined by the square of the sum of
the strength of individual fields.
→ →
E[ 1 ] E ⃗E = ⃗E + ⃗E w[ 12]=( ⃗E[12 ]⋅⃗E[12 ] )
and [ 2 ] , [12 ] [1 ] [2 ] , (18)

Figure 3. Three-dimensional view of the isosurface of the energy density wp near the
center (the Fermi scale 1 relat. unit = 10-15 m). The Z-axis is directed along the spin of the proton.
As the field strength is a vector, its tensor character appears automatically. The interaction energy (or the
binding energy of the system) of the two fields w12 can be written as the difference between the total energy
of the resulting field and the sum of the total energies of individual fields w1 and w2:
(19)
where θ is the angle between the axes Z1 and Z2 of the interacting fields. It should be noted that the
expression for the energy density of the resulting field

is quite complicated and cumbersome, and the volume integral in general cannot be calculated. Therefore,
the problem of finding the interaction energy between the two fields has been solved by discrete
computational methods with the use of simple software that can be described as follows.
Values of the field potential in the form (14) for given positions and orientations of each proton have
been recorded in the "cubes" of a 100100100 size (one million cells). Then local gradients, their squares,
the sum of gradients and their squares have been computed. Similarly the energy densities have been
calculated. The interaction energy has been determined according to expression (19). Absolute values have
normalized to the table mass of the proton in MeV by changing the parameter k2 in equation (14). Step in
space has been chosen so that the calculated energy of the field (with an accuracy up to the 4th decimal) has
not changed up to the limits of the "cube" 909090. This gives us the confidence that within these limits
the interaction energy has been found correctly. To monitor the progress of calculations, intermediate energy
values have been taken out for each field with given coordinates of the center and the orientation of its axis
with respect to the axial OZ-axis of computing.
The scheme of calculations has been simple. In the center of the "cube" there has been a proton with an
orientation of the Z1-axis parallel to the axis OZ. The second proton has been added (for control) on the
axes ±OX, ±OY, ±OZ, and also in arbitrary points of space with different angles of inclination of its proper
Z2-axis. Then the proton has been moved along the line connecting the two centers and for the each distance
the interaction energy has been calculated. The display has shown the dependency of the energy wbind in
relation to the distance between the centers of the given mutual orientation of the protons.
Figure 4 shows the most typical wbind depending on the distance at different relative orientations of spins
of the protons. Schematically, they are depicted in the form of isosurfaces of the charge density. It is

7
interesting that for all possible mutual orientations only one version provides the negative binding energy.
This is the case 4, when the axes of symmetry of the two protons are parallel, although it would seem, that in
terms of electrostatics the most favorable is the case 3. Clarification of these circumstances requires the
further study.
The comparison of the p-p potential with widely used previous nuclear potentials is shown in Figure 4.
As can be seen, the behavior of the potential is agreement by all the parameters, particularly by the depth of
the potential well and the radial dependence. Recall that the absolute values of the binding energy have not
been normalized. They appeared automatically by fitting the rest masses of the two protons to the table
value.
The common expression for the nucleon-nucleon potential has a lot of empirical constants and fitting
summands responsible for the specific properties of nuclear forces.

Figure 4. The dependence of the interaction energy of two protons on the distance between the centers at
different mutual orientations. Protons are shown by isosurfaces of the charge density on the scale of about 1
Fermi. Red color displays the field of the positive charge; blue color depicts that of negative. For
orientations 1-3, the interaction energy is always positive (repulsive). For orientation 4, in a wide range of
distances the interaction energy is negative, which indicates the existence of attractive forces and the
possibility of forming a bound state.
Thus, the general form of the potential well, due to the specific distribution of the charge density inside
the proton, reminds us the van der Waals interaction, which is well known in atomic physics.
The presence of a characteristic minimum with the minimum depth of about 50 MeV suggests the
possible existence of a bound state of two protons – diproton, or 2He [23]. In other words, if in the lattice of
a solid that is highly saturated with ionized hydrogen (which we see in the Ni-H-processes of could fusion)
protons are arranged in the right position, they will be able to form a spontaneously excited bound state. At
first glance, this conclusion seems paradoxical. However, recall that this process is somewhat similar to the
first step of the process described in classical nuclear physics as a proton-proton chain reaction (also
model!), which presumably occurs in stars at high temperatures.

Figure 5. Comparison of the model proton electrostatic potential (middle line) with the potential of Reed
(lower curve) and the Lennard-Jones potential applied for a nuclear scale (upper curve).
8
 It appears that in the lattice of a number of metals a new class of low-energy nuclear processes with a
"zero" relative velocity of the reactants is realized, which occurs when their mutual orientation plays a
decisive role in shaping the forces of repulsion and attraction. To create such a situation, one needs to slow
down the rotation of a three-dimensional proton as a whole and orient neighboring particles in the right
direction. This can be done in the fields of atomic lattice structure when it is appropriate. Thus, the structure
of the lattice and its permeability to protons are the determining factors for starting LENR-processes.
Discussion
What today do we know with confidence? At the first level of specification, nucleons consist of three
sub-particles (quarks) with opposite fractional charges and rather strange properties (confinement).
Taking the hypothesis of discreteness and deformability of the physical vacuum, we have put in
Coulomb's law two parameters and automatically received a specific charge density distribution of different
signs in three spatial areas. This result is the temptation to identify them with the quarks, which do not have
asymptotic freedom but are located along the axis of symmetry and rigidly connected to each other. The
appearance of the tensor nature of the interaction between protons is no longer requires the introduction of
additional assumptions. The most important thing is that in some relative positions and orientations instead
of repulsive forces there appear forces of mutual attraction, which may be prevalent in quasi-static mode. In
other words, there emerge conditions for the creation of diproton, though the probability of appearance of
such particle in the classical sense is very low [23].
However, diprotins have not been observed in experimentally. Since they cannot decay, then there must
be a channel of the conversion them to another nuclide. Indeed, the simplest channel – it is an external
electron capture and conversion of a proton into a neutron.
Recall the table data on the masses of the rest of three main elementary particles: mp = 938.2721 Mev; md
= 1875.6128; me = 0.511 MeV.
Simple mass balance 2mp + me - md = 1.4424 MeV shows that in this case there is a deuteron with an
excitation energy ~1.44 MeV. This is very important because the energy of the deuteron decay is about 2.22
MeV and it is forced into existence, when its excitation energy is concentrated in the vibrational modes of
the proton and the neutron relative to the center of mass. Let us designate it as 2H⊛. Such specific compound
state in principle has an infinite lifetime in a vacuum, since there is no de-excitation channel. If the protons,
reagents, before fusion into 2He⊛, there have been in the same external conditions, the resulting excited
nuclide will rest. If at the beginning there has been a small asymmetry, the product of the fusion will be
moving at a speed of no more than hundreds of meters per second (determined by the temperature of the
lattice).
The distance of mutual removing of the proton and neutron is determined by the potential depending on
the distance at a large scale, and the divergence can be quite large. What do we get in the end? It is a slowly
moving nuclide with the energy about 1.5 MeV, and this energy is concentrated in the pulsation of nucleons
relative to the center (the internal energy). If we use the relationship of de Broglie for the deuteron having a
speed of about 1 km/s of, we get for its wavelength λ ~ 0.1 angstrom. That is, it is a giant scale by the
nuclear measurements.
Again, according to the classical concepts, the cross section of the interaction of 2H with the neighboring
nuclei is proportional to λ2. Hence, taking into account the length of the mean free path and the
concentration of light nuclei in the environment, the probability of the next merger will become comparable
with unit.
How are valid these semi-fantastic arguments?
Let us turn to the electrolysis works with track detectors CR-39 [24-28]. Using an elaborate procedure for
the preparation of 10-micron granules of fractal palladium and initiate LENR-processes with their help, the
authors [24] managed to measure single acts of nuclear transformations. We have to talk about those
transformations in more detail.
Indeed, at the conditions of a close geometry, when the detector is located near the palladium cathode,
high-energy nuclear particles are recorded; their appearance is associated with nuclear processes in the
cathode. Brilliantly organized and professionally processed experiments visualize, in our view, fragments of
first stages of LENR-processes. It seems appropriate to demonstrate an example (Fig. 6) of processed array
of tracks, because it is very indicative.

9
Figure 6 (from the Ref. 24). Dependence of the number of tracks versus their diameter on the front (red
bars) and rear (green bars) sides of the detector in the experiment №7.
The authors suggested that traces of nuclear particles were associated with rapid recoil protons that arose
due to the neutrons from the DD-reaction in the Pd-cathode.
The calibration of the detector (together with an etching technique, Fig. 7) by the protons of known
energy and the comparative experiment with a neutron source on the basis 252Cf seemingly confirmed the
original hypothesis.

Figure 7. Experimental calibration curves of Roussetski et al. [24] for diameters of proton tracks in different
types of detectors CR-39.
However, the presence of a substantial amount of large diameter tracks in other detectors forced the
authors to assume the presence of other nuclei, e.g., α particles. In addition, the fatal divergence of the
intensities of generated primary neutrons, which were estimated using boron and plastic (CR-39) detectors,
led to an idea of a more cautious conclusion.
Since the CR-39 detectors allow two-three orders of magnitude higher values of neutron flux, a
reasonable question arises: May tracks of large diameter be associated with other types of fast charged
particles? For example, they may be deuterons, 3H and 3He particles, etc. Fig. 8 from paper [26] depicts
characteristics of the reaction of CR-39 to fast charged hydrogen isotopes. As is easily seen, the diameter of
the shown track is heavily dependent on the type of trapped particles. These data emphasize that its ionizing
power strongly depends on the speed and, hence, it can be used for identification. These data do not coincide
with the previous calibration first of all because another etching technique used. However, the ratio between
the diameters of the tracks for different isotopes of hydrogen must be preserved.

10
Figure 8 from Yamauchi [26]. Response of the CR-39 detector to high-energy hydrogen isotopes as a
function of the energy and the type of particles. A multi-stage etching technique was used, which gives more
precise information about the primary characteristics of a latent track.
So, a question of principle is arisen: If with the use of fast neutrons we can not explain the real nuclear
events in the detector, then we must assume that the reactions are initiated in the solution at the boundary of
the surface of the detector where the necessary reagents (protons and deuterons) are present. This is
especially true in the case of a large number of double and triple tracks coming from one place. Then the
events involving fast DD-neutrons are absolutely excluded. Therefore, variations of spontaneous p-p, p-D or
DD-fusion, as proposed in our work, are not excluded.
Conclusions
The proposed simple model "electronuclear" potential of a nucleon creates in a static version a "tunnel"
of attraction. In the dynamic case, a fast precession of the field (the three-axis rotation) averages internal
anisotropy and forms a well-known spherical Coulomb potential.
Based on this approach, we account for driving forces in LENR-processes. Two resting, which are
inhibited by external conditions, protons (deuterons) with their axial parallel orientation of spins must be
attracted to each other forming as a result a short-lived diproton or 2He-nucleus. The temperature of the
environment determines its maximum speed.
2
He due to the capture of a K-electron from the surrounding is transformed into a long-lived state of the
deuteron (2H⊛) with the energy of internal excitation Ed⊛ = 1.44 MeV. This nuclide is very active to react
(like a "lighter") and at the slow motion (or even at rest) is able to launch a cascade merge with neighboring
nuclei, if their Coulomb barrier is less than Ed⊛.
Known masses of stable light nuclei are such that the merger is energetically favorable and can be
realized in all cases, unless prohibited by law of conservation of angular momenta of substrates and reaction
products.
It is quite possible that the successive stages of such cascade merger form the basis of a united
mechanism of nucleosynthesis, when a high-energy compound state of an intermediate nucleus NАZ⊛ has
only three scenarios of behavior: collapse, further merger, and the movement in space with "cooling" by
dropping the internal energy of excitation in the ionization of surrounding atoms (the so-called "strange
radiation").
Based on the above ideas we can try to define the areas of phenomena that are most frequently called
LENR.
Low-energy nuclear reactions (CF, LENR, LANR, CNF) are a class of cascading changes of
nuclides (natural nucleosynthesis) at close to zero relative velocities, when one of the nuclides is a
compound nucleus with an excitation energy that is high than the Coulomb barrier of the reagents.
The beginning is triggered by fusion of hydrogen isotopes that are oriented by the environment.

Instead of corollary
The author understands a radicality of his approach and the naturalness of its initial rejection on the side
of a destroying reasoned criticism. Nevertheless, methodological and physical simplicity, the ability to
explain the majority of real LENR experiments allows him to hope for its survival.
The author sincere thanks to all the followers, optimists, of LENR who share their results obtained with
the global scientific community.
References
1. Storms E., A Student’s Guideto Cold Fusion, https://vk.com/doc22263914_410035567?
hash=5d42e1638862b8400e&dl=ef0d619896555d6170
2. Ratis Yu. L., Controlled "Thermonuclear" or Cold Fusion? The Drama of Ideas. Samara: SNTs of RAS
(2009) – 92 pages (in Muscowian).
3. http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/#bottom
4. http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm
5. Frisone, F., Nuclear exothermic reactions in lattices: a theoretical study of D-D reaction, J. Condensed Matter
Nucl. Sci. 17 (2015).
6. Hagelstein, P.L., Empirical models for octahedral and tetrahedral occupation in PdH and in PdD at high
loading, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 17 (2015).
7. Tsyganov, E. N., et al., Cold nuclear fusion in metal environment. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 17 (2015).
11
8. Fisher, J.C., Neutron isotope theory of LENR processes, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015).
9. Takahashi, A., Nuclear products of cold fusion by TSC theory, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015).
10. Bazhutov, Y., Erzion model interpretation of the experiments with hydrogen loading of various metals, J.
Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 13 (2014).
11. Meulenberg, A. and A. Sinha, New visions of physics through the microscope of cold fusion, J. Condensed
Matter Nucl. Sci., 13 (2014).
12. DeChiaro L. F., Forsley L. P. and Mosier-Boss P., Strained layer ferromagnetism in transition metals and its
impact upon low energy nuclear reactions, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 17 (2015).
13. Vysotskii, V., On Problems of Widom-Larsen theory applicability to analysis and explanation of Rossi
experiments, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014).
14. Cook N. D. and Rossi A., On the nuclear mechanisms underlying the heat production by the E-Cat,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01261
15. Storms E., The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between
Observation and Explanation, Infinite Energy Press (2014).
16. Heisenberg W., Über die Spektra von Atomsystemen mit zwei Elektronen, Z. Phys. 39, 499-518 (1926).
17. Mukhin K. N., Experimental Nuclear Physics, Moscow: Energoatomizdat, (1993) - 399 p. (in Muscowian).
18. Hangulyan V. A. and Shapiro I. S., Selected Issues of the Nuclear Theory. Ttextbook. Moscow, MIPhI (2009)
- 156 p. (in Muscowian).
19. Gros F., Symposium and Annual Meeting, Batavia, USA, 11-13 June (2003).
20. G. Miller, Combined measurement and QCD analysis of the onclusive e-p scattering cross sections at HERA,
Phys. Rev. C 68, 022201 (R) (2003); http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0884
21. Bromley D. A., Gauge Theory of Weak Interactions, Springer (2000).
22. Buchmann A. J., Nucleon deformation and atomic spectroscopy, Can. J. Phys. 83, 455 (2005).
23. Bradford R. A. W., The effect of hypothetical diproton stability on the universe, J. Astrophys. Astr. 30, 119–
131 (2009).
24. Lipson A. G., Roussetski A. S., Saunin E. I., Tanzella F., Earle B. and McKubre M., Analysis of the CR-39
detectors from SRI’s SPAWAR/Galileo type electrolysis experiments #7 and #5. Signature of possible
neutron emission, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266169423.
25. Mosier-Boss P. A., Szpak S., Gordon F. E. and Forsley L. P. G., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition
experiments. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2007/2007BossP-UseOfCR39.pdf
26. Yamauchi T, Triton, deuteron and proton responses of the CR-39 track detector, in Radiation Detectors and
Their Uses, Proceedings of the 10th Workshopon Radiation Detectors and their Uses, 23-25 January (1996),
KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki JAPAN, 41-49.

12