Dr. Yeong E. Kim is a professor at Purdue University specializing in theoretical physics who has speculated that Bose-Einstein Condensates (BEC) are involved in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Cold Fusion Now attended the 2012 NETS conference where he presented his theory.
Chemist and new energy writer Peter Gluck has published a new interview with Dr. Kim discussing the changes in the field over the past two-and-a-half decades and his viewing of Defkalion Green Technology’s Hyperion reactor in Vancouver, Canada.
Original article here.
Gluck Q1 Dear Yeong, can you please tell us about your moments of awakening, illumination, scientific revelations to the truth of cold fusion?
Kim As you know, John Huizenga dismissed the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) as the scientific fiasco of the century [John R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion: the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, U. Rochester Press (1992)]. He claimed that three miracles were needed to explain the FPE:
(1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) (Miracle #1),
(2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (Miracle #2), and
(3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space (Miracle #3).
The above three violations are known as “three miracles of cold fusion”.
My first moment of awakening happened when Fleischmann and Pons announced their experimental results in news media. Initially, my feeling of disbelief dominated about this discovery as a practicing theoretical nuclear physicist, as most of my professional colleagues did. As I was searching a possible theoretical explanation for the claimed discovery, I realized that the conventional nuclear theory could not be applied to deuteron fusion in metal.
However, at the same time, I did not know how to formulate a theory for deuteron fusion in metal, even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.
When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature. Furthermore, I did not have slightest ideas for explaining the miracles #2 and #3. However my theoretical curiosity on the miracle #1 did kept my intellectual interests on the subject.
My second awakening happened in 1996-1997 when our theory group at Purdue developed the optical theorem approach for low-energy nuclear reactions. Purdue nuclear theory group at that time consists of four members (Y. E. Kim, group leader; A. L. Zubarev, senior scientist; Y. J. Kim, visiting professor; and J. – H. Yoon, graduate student). Our results were published in a publication entitled “Optical Theorem Formulation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (OTF-LENRs) [Physical Review C 55, 801 (1997)]. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml
Our optical theorem formulation is rigorous. My second awakening came in 1997 with realization that our theoretical result for the OTF-LENRs can be used to develop a generalized theory which is appropriate for describing deuteron fusion in a metal.
My third awakening and illumination happened when I and Zubarev developed a theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) for deuteron fusion in a metal. The results were published in 2000 [“Nuclear fusion for Bose nuclei confined in ion traps,” Fusion Technology 37, 151 (2000); “Ultra low-energy nuclear fusion of Bose nuclei in nano-scale ion traps,” Italian Physical Society Conference Proceedings 70, 375 (2000)]. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml My third awakening came in 2000 with realization that the BECNF theory is capable of explaining the F- P effect and all of Huizenga’s three miracles.
My fourth awakening is currently evolving ever since I met John Hadjichristos of Defkalion at the NI Week in August 2012. I was very pleasantly surprised when he told me at the NI Week that he quoted our OTF-LENRs paper in his paper submitted to ICCF-17. This was the first time someone in the LENR community was quoting this paper! My second surprise was to hear from him about the even-isotope effect which he observed in his experiments and which was reported in his ICCF-17 paper. The observed even isotope effect is consistent with the theory of BECNF! More detailed theoretical analysis of reaction mechanisms for his experimental results is currently in progress
Gluck Q2 24 years have elapsed; hundreds of successful experiments were made proofs of the reality of the phenomena. Unfortunately the experiments were not sufficiently successful to provide the necessary understanding of what happens and the conditions to enhance the heat release to useful levels? What were your thoughts re the evolution of the experimental situation in the field?
Kim Experiments with electrolysis and gas loading involve very complex measurements with many parameters. Unfortunately, even when useful positive results were observed, it had been very difficult to reproduce the results. The absence of reproducibility of positive experimental results has been a major road block in the field.
We needed desperately a break-through in experimental procedures and techniques to achieve the reproducibility. Unfortunately lack of research funding prevented intense and concentrated experimental works based on fresh new ideas, especially from younger generation.
Gluck Q3 You have published over 200 papers re Physics http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml and over 50 regarding LENR. (An opportunity to thank you for the many fine papers of you have sent me by classic mail and later electronic mail). As a theorist it is said you do not belong to any school, you “are” a school. I could understand this for LENR from your very first note re Cluster Fusion in 1989 till http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/PhysRevC.55.801.pdf the Kim paper I know; may I ask how your theoretical ideas have evolved?
Kim Peter, this was actually answered – for your first question.
I will ask the nice readers to study these two relevant documents: “Critical Review of Theoretical Models (1994)” and “Message to the Colleagues 2012” http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml Many of my papers are also posted in the above web site. I hope to publish very important new ones soon.
Gluck Q4 Why is the way to truth and to value so long; why does LENR still have so many problems? On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your degree of discontent with the global situation of LENR?
Kim This is more a philosophical question and I am a physicist. Perhaps CF was not discovered in the best place; perhaps it is a historical bad chance that two electrochemist geniuses have discovered it. And surely I am highly discontented with the experimental situation – weak signals and poor reproducibility – if and when they come, lack of conceptual unity, vision. The theory part was not much better, however I am happy that now becomes obvious – our theory is a part of a greater vision, and it is a critical part.
Gluck Q5 Recently some non-conformist newcomers, as for example Defkalion Green Technologies Global (DGTG) came with the idea that actually what we call LENR is something much more complex than we have thought and the solution is to radically re-design the components – hydrogen, metal, reaction vessel and environment to make it productive and controllable. What do you think about this New Wave idea? New paradigm?
Kim Recently, I had an opportunity to observe experimental runs of DGTG’s R-5 reactor carried out by their group of scientists in Vancouver. The results were positive. More importantly the results are reproducible, since there had been many positive runs with other observers in addition to my observation.
This is very significant historically since we have now a device which yields reproducible results for the first time. It is a break-through which we have been waiting for.
The break-through is accomplished by new-comers, a new breed of scientists and engineers led by a mathematician who became an excellent scientist. This is a new wave and new paradigm change.
Gluck Q6 Prediction is an intellectual activity superior even to wisdom. Please tell my readers what are your predictions for the future of the field! Are you looking to the present and then great chances are you are pessimist, or do you have the vision of a bright future?
Kim Recently I became very optimistic. At Vancouver I witnessed a protocoled successful test with results leaving no doubt about plenty of excess heat and good control of the device. I am an optimist regarding the principles, but also for discovering and or creating the details which I plan to work on very hard in collaboration with my DGTG friends.
Peter Gluck‘s original interview with Yeong E. Kim is at Ego Out.
9 Replies to “Peter Gluck and Yeong E. Kim on LENR research”
Mark this day on your Calendar. (And I managed to get Dr. Kim’s autograph! Much to his embarrasment.)
Oh Happy day.
The involvement of Mr. Kim with DGT is certainly an excellent development. It is slowly coming to happen, the wide open acceptance of LENR.
Robert Anton Wilson said we see the world through our own “reality tunnels”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7tGOr2NU0 When I think of LENR as a chemist, I think of what might be going on at the molecular level (the subnano scale).
I think we have a better way to understand the formation of helium without gamma rays if we pay more attention to the chemistry of a F&P type system before we jump into the physics because the chemical structure is setting things up for the nuclear reactions. For example palladium has a valance of 2+, Pd(2+) and deuteride has a valance of 1-, D(1-). Two deuterium bond with palladium to form palladium deuteride, PdD2. The palladium-deuterium bond is a “soft” POLARIZABLE bond by HSAB theory (hard soft acid base theory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSAB_theory
Think of this bond between palladium and deuterium as a spring (~~) attached to two balls ( or a paddle ball http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54CZ6YMQWRg ). If this bond is irradiated with the right frequency (the inferred stretching frequency of the Pd~~D bond) it could set off an oscillation of this bond that might get the nuclei ( the balls or the ball and paddle) close enough to undergo a nuclear reaction to form silver, Ag (silver in an excited state, Ag*) The silver would be attached to the remaining unreacted attached deuterium Ag*~~D.
The silver-deuterium bond is also a “soft” bond and if it’s irradiated at its inferred stretching frequency (inferred i.e. heat) it might trigger the next reaction with the remaining deuterium to form cadmium, Cd, (cadmium in an excited state, Cd*).
The cadmium in its excited state, Cd*, will release its energy in a fission reaction that produces palladium, Pd, and helium, He (without gamma rays).
D~~Pd~~D > Ag*~~D > Cd* > Pd + He 23.8 MeV
Similar reactions may be taking place in nickel-hydrogen systems (but the product nickel would have two fewer neutrons than the starting nickel).
H(1)~~Ni(n)~~H(1) > Cu*~~H(1) > Zn* > Ni(n-2) + He
Wow, what did I just say? I must be totally delirious!
Because the palladium (or nickel) is anchored to the lattice, the Mössbauer effect comes into play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_effect
So, the paddle ball analogy is better than the two balls on a spring analogy. The lattice can be thought of as the paddle and the deuterium (or hydrogen) can be thought of as the ball on the rubber band. Perhaps heating (thermal infrared radiation, IR) starts up these IR stretching oscillations throughout the lattice.
PS. This might also take place in light hydrogen-palladium systems where helium and isotopic shifts of palladium would be seen. Infrared lasers tuned to the IR stretching frequencies of the Pd~~H(1) and Ag*~~H(1) bonds might initiate the following reaction.
H(1)~~Pd(n)~~H(1) > Ag*~~H(1) > Cd* > Pd(n-2) + He(4)
It’s hard for me to see all this action taking place without the bonds between palladium breaking. At what point does the oscillation energy break the metallic lattice? How would that then effect the reaction?
Infrared is not energetic enough to break the bonds in this system. The metal-hydrogen bond can only absorb a photon of a specific energy. They would be tuned to a specific frequency that would be different from the frequency that would cause the metal-metal bonds to vibrate. I’ll try to find a way to explain it a little better than I have and then I’ll get back to you. In the meantime this video on IR spectroscopy might help clear things up a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmf_JylLQ0
P.S. I’m thinking that the bonds don’t need to break. I’m thinking that the oscillations of the bond may bring the nuclei close enough to react in a nuclear reaction (perhaps they could get close enough to each other for tunneling to take place). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling And here’s one more tutorial from 1962 that depicts the various vibrational modes molecules can have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDpD2757jrc
Another thought about nickel-hydrogen systems: The hot pressurized hydrogen gas, H2 in the reactor can collide with the metal surface bound hydride, H-Ni and transfer its energy to it (like a hammer hitting a tuning fork). This is another way to stimulate the oscillations of the nickel hydride bond.
Also by Hooke’s law, the nickel-hydride bond will vibrate at a higher frequency than a nickel-deuteride bond because a deuteron has roughly twice the mass of a proton.
This may explain why hydrogen works but deuterium doesn’t work in the E-Cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ541Luq4nE (3:00 mark).
Think of the infrared stretching of the metal hydride bond as being analogous to a cyclotron.
Comments are closed.