Enhancement Mechanisms of Low Energy Nuclear

Reactions
Gareev F.A., Zhidkova I.E.
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,
141980, Dubna, Russia
gareev@thsun1.jinr.ru
zhidkova@jinr.ru

1 Introduction
arXiv:nucl-th/0505021 v1 8 May 2005

One of the fundamental presentations of nuclear physics since the very early days of its study
has been the common assumption that the radioactive process (the half-life or decay constant) is
independent of external conditions. Rutherford, Chadwick and Ellis [1] came to the conclusion
that:

• ≪the value of λ (the decay constant) for any substance is a characteristic constant inde-
pendent of all physical and chemical conditions≫.

This very important conclusion (still playing a negative role in cold fusion phenomenon) is
based on the common expectation (P. Curie suggested that the decay constant is the etalon of
time) and observation that the radioactivity is a nuclear phenomenon since all our actions affect
only states of the atom but do not change the nucleus states. We cannot hope to mention even
a small part of the work done to establish the constancy of nuclear decay rates. For example,
Emery G.T. stated [2]:

• ≪ Early workers tried to change the decay constants of various members of the natural
radioactive series by varying the temperature between 24◦ K and 1280◦ K, by applying
pressure of up to 2000 atm, by taking sources down into mines and up to the Jungfraujoch,
by applying magnetic fields of up to 83,000 Gauss, by whirling sources in centrifuges, and
by many other ingenious techniques. Occasional positive results were usually understood,
in time, as result of changes in the counting geometry, or of the loss of volatile members of
the natural decay chains. This work was reviewed by Meyer and Schweider [3], Kohlrausch
[4], and Bothe [5]. Especially interesting for its precision is the experiment of Curie and
Kamerlingh Onnes [6], who reported that lowering the temperature of radium preparation
to the boiling point of liquid hydrogen changed its activity, and thus its decay constant,
by less than about 0.05%. Especially of Rutherford and Petavel [7], who put a sample
of radium emanation inside a steel-encased cordite bomb. Even though temperatures of
2500◦C and pressures of 1000 atm were estimated to have occurred during the explosion,
no discontinuity in the activity of the sample was observed≫.

It seems (in that time) that this conclusion was supported by the following very simple and
strong arguments (Common Sense):
1. Nuclear processes have characteristic energies ≈ 1 MeV, whereas chemistry has a few eV
per atom, molecules have a part of eV. The inner atomic shells are bound with many keV in
the medium and heavy elements.
2.The localization of electrons in atoms is ≈ 10−8 cm, whereas the localization of nucleons in
nuclei is ≈ 10−13 cm.

1
Therefore, the nucleus should be unaffected by superficial atomic changes: nuclear processes
should not be influenced by the surroundings. The constancy of nuclear decay rates was firmly
established, confirming evidences from experimental studies of α- and β-decays and theoretical
estimations.
The constancy of nuclear decay rates acquired the strength as a classical law. Any papers
contradicting this law were ignored by all the scientific journals as erroneous ones.
The history of science has own laws. The ground of the β-decay of nuclei was given by
E. Fermi in 1934 year. It was very easy to prove that certain processes of radioactive decay
should be intimately connected with the presence of atomic electrons and may be affected by
the changes in the electronic structure produced by chemical compounds. It took 13 years to
understand this very simple phenomenon. The possibility of altering the decay rate of Be7 was
suggested in 1947 by Segre [8] and by Dodel [9, 10]. In the case of electron- capture decays the
decay rate is directly related to the density of atomic electrons in the nucleus and the effects
of different chemical environments should be measurable. The theoretical foundation was the
following [8]:

• ≪ The radioactive decay constant of a substance decaying by orbital electron capture is

proportional to | ψ(0) |2 of the electrons. In the case of a light element like 7 Be it
may be possible to alter this quantity by an appreciable amount by putting the Be in
different chemical compounds. We would then have a slight change of the radioactive
half-life of the Be in different compounds. The magnitude of the effect may be in the
neighborhood of one percent, but it is practically impossible to give quantitative estimate
because the total change of ψ(0) is affected by certain factors such as the density of
the crystal, nature of the chemical bond, etc. they are both positive and negative, and
have comparable magnitudes. To obtain a reliable estimate of the effect we require a
more detailed knowledge of the wave functions for various compounds than is at present
available. Experiments are in progress to detect the effect by comparing the half-life of
7
Be in Be metal with that in BeO or BeF2 ≫.
The confirmed altering decay rate for 7 Be in different chemical compounds was of the order
0.1% [2]. The 6-hr isomer 99m T c decays by internal conversion of a 2.2-keV E3 transition. The
observed effects in different chemical forms were of the order 0.3% [2]. The greatest chemically
induced half-life changes of the order 3.5% were established in [11].
The half-life of 7 Be electron capture was measured [12] in endohedral fulleren 7 Be@C60 and
7
Be metal: T1/2 = 52.68±0.05 and T1/2 = 53.12±0.05 days, respectively. This 0.83% difference
between the electron capture in C60 and in 7 Be metal represents a strong environmental effect
on the 7 Be EC capture rate, caused by the different electronic wave functions near the 7 Be
nucleus inside a C60 cage and inside Be metal.
A weak interaction which is responsible for electron capture and other forms of beta decay
is of very short range. So the rate of electron capture and emission (internal conversion) is
proportional to the density of electrons at the nucleus. It means that we can manage the
electron-capture (emission) rate by the change of the total density in the nucleus. It can
be carried out in different macroscopic ways by using available environmental effects. These
questions were highlighted in different reviews and books [2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] at the
end of the seventies of the 20th century. The reader should compare the common by accepted
conclusions about the decay rates in the thirties and seventies of the 20th century.
Data on pleochroic halos led to the conclusion [20] that these data do not provide a con-
vincing proof that the laws of radioactive decay are constant in time.

2
 Shnol S. and coauthors [21] came to the conclusion that the decay rates of radioactive nuclei
change in time with the period of 24 hours, 27, and 365 days. Periodic variations in β-decay
rates of 60 Co, 90 Sr and 137 Cs were discovered [22, 23, 24, 25]. The 27-day and 24-hour period
in these changes were found.
The aim of this talk is to discuss the possibility of inducing and controlling nuclear reactions
at low temperatures and pressures by using different low-energy external fields and various
physical and chemical processes. The main question is the following: is it possible to enhance
LENR rates by using the low and extremely low energy external fields?

2 Cold fusion and transmutation

In 1989 Fleishmann M. and Pons S. reported about their observation of nuclear products
and excess heat on a palladium electrode during the electrolysis of solutions in heavy water.
The electrochemical experiments were interpreted by the authors as a result of nuclear fusion
reaction (named cold fusion) but the scientific community rejected this interpretation. More
than 3000 papers in the field of cold fusion and transmutation (further the low-energy nuclear
reaction LENR) were published. Various anomalous results were observed at low temperatures
and pressures which are beyond the framework of modern theoretical paradigm. The theoretical
models are not able describe these anomalies even qualitatively. The reader can find the history
and problems of cold fusion in the Proceedings of the International Conferences on Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science, the Russian Conferences on Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical
Elements and Ball Lighting, and also in a recent review of the Department of Energy of the
USA [26] and books [27, 28]. Russian experimental data on the low-energy nuclear reactions are
published in [29, 30, 31, 32] and their new theoretical interpretation was given in [33, 34, 35, 36].
The general important conclusion can be drawn from the studies performed during 15 years:

• The poor reproducibility of experimental results and extreme difficulties of their inter-
pretation in the framework of modern standard theoretical physics are the main reasons
of the persistent nonrecognition of cold fusion and transmutation phenomenon.

Recent progress in both directions is remarkable (see Abstracts ICCF-11, Marseille: France:
2004, 31 October - 5 November); in spite of being rejected by physical society, this phenomenon
is a key point for further success corresponding fundamental research.

2.1 Reproducibility of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Experiments

Reproducibility of experiments within and between laboratories is a fundamental requirement
and cornerstone for any scientific investigations. There are many fundamental factors that are
relevant to the issue of reproducibility (for details see [37]).
Everybody with a perfect ear will say that, for example, on the viola play will have never
be reproducible: it depends on too many factors (resonance conditions) which are impossible
to repeat. The semiconductor effect in a transistor is extremely sensitive to damages and
impurities of crystal which were impossible to control in the initial experiments. The degree
of reproducibility was increasing over the years when the properties of used materials were
improved and standardized, and the process was optimized and controlled with high accuracy.
The same would happen for reproducibility of LENR [27]. We will show that expectation for

3
LENR is correct only partly1 .
The targets in standard nuclear physics using accelerators are the substances in the ground
states: the gases, amorphous solids or crystalline solids. The projectile particle interaction
with target nuclei has taken place in vacuum. Therefore, the influence of the surrounding
matter (say, atomic electrons) on the velocity of such nuclear processes (especially at high
energies) should be negligible. It seems that these expectations supported by estimations of
energy and size differences (10−5 − 10−6 ) of atoms and nuclei and experiments show almost a
full reproducibility.
We come to the following conclusion:

• A greater part of processes in nuclear physics takes place in closed systems. Reproducibil-
ity of such experiments should be independent of the place and time of measurements -
a cornerstone of the modern scientific method.

LENRs occur in the surroundings (gases, condensed mater, water, solutions,..) which are
induced by low-energy external fields as ultrasounds, electromagnetic fields, lasers,... So atoms,
molecules in the surroundings and atoms of interacting nuclei are in excited states or ionized.
Nuclei, atoms, the surrounding medium, and external fields representing interacting subsys-
tems are form a dynamical open system. Frequencies and phases of subsystem motions may
be coordinated according to the universal resonance synchronization principle (see Appendix)
and the result may be a creation of a collective (coherence) state for the whole system. We will
call such a system an auto-oscillation system in which the frequencies of an external field and
frequencies of the all subsystems are commensurable. The demand for frequency commensura-
bility means that all motions in a system are in co-ordination (in resonance), which is difficult
to fulfil. This is the cause of poor reproducibility of LENR.
We formulate as a working hypothesis the following assumption:

• LENRs take places in open systems in which all frequencies and phases coordinated
according to the universal resonance synchronization principle – the main reason for
poor reproducibility. Poor reproducibility and unexplained results do not mean that the
experiment is wrong.

2.2 The Bound State β − Decay

Bound state β − decay (βb ), in which the decay electron remains in an electron bound state of the
daughter atom and the monochromatic antineutrino carries the total decay energy Q, was first
predicted by R. Daudel, M. Jean, and M. Lecoin [38] in 1947 and discussed in [39, 40, 41, 42, 43].
This new decay mode, the bound state β − decay, was for the first time experimentally
observed for bare 163 Dy [44] (Bare means that the atom 163 Dy is ionized fully. We will use the
designation for this case as 163 Dy 66+ ) and 187 Re [45]. Nucleus 163 Dy is stable as a neutral atom
(Qβ = −2.565 keV) and become radioactive when fully ionized atoms (bare nucleus 163 Dy 66+ )
decay to 163 Ho66+ (QK βb =+50.3 keV) via the bound state βb decay with a half-life of 47 days.
Nucleus Ho is unstable and it is transferred to 163 Dy by electron capture with a half-life of
163

4.6·103 yr. Difference of masses m(163 Ho)−m(163 Dy) = 2.6keV; therefore, the electron capture
is only possible from M- or higher orbits.Unstable nuclei 163 Ho become practically stable due to
ionization of atoms 163 Ho up to these orbits because the electron capture in these cases is only
possible from continuum states which have an extremely small probability. The ionization of
1
References to original and review cold fusion literature are not given in our talk. They are available in the
Proceedings of ICCF.

4
atoms changes the beta decay direction of nuclei: in neutral atoms 163 Ho (163 Dy) the electron
capture leads to the transition 163 Ho →163 Dy(163 Dy are stable), in fully ionized atoms bare
nuclei 163 Ho67+ (163 Dy 66+ ) are stable (unstable).

• General conclusion: in neutral atoms some ground state nuclei decay via orbital electron
capture, for bare nuclei (fully ionized atoms) the electron capture branches are blocked.
In these cases (if in addition the positron decays are lacking) bare nuclei become stable.
This conclusion is very strong and wells-known in nuclear society.

For neutral 187 Re0+ only a unique, first forbidden transition to the 187 Os ground state is
energetically possible. The small matrix element and the small Qβ value of Qβ =2.663(19) keV
lead to the long half-life of 42 Gyr. The measured half-life [45] for bare 187 Re75+ (QK
βb =+72.97
187
keV) of T1/2 = (32.9 ± 2.0) yr is billion times shorter than that for neutral Re.

• The ground state β decay properties of nuclei cardinally change when all electrons of
the atomic shells are removed: stable (unstable) nuclei become unstable (stable) and a
half-life may decrease up to billion times - 9 orders of magnitude. The interpretation is
very simple: magnitude of Qβ and phase volume increase for the ionized atoms rather
than for neutral ones.

2.3 Nuclear Decay of Coulomb Excited and Isomeric States for Fully
Ionized Atoms
The half-lives of isomeric states of fully ionized 144m T b65+ , 149m Dy 66+ and 151m Er 68 were mea-
sured [46]. The increase was observed of the half-lives of bare isomers by factors of up to 30
to their neutral counterparts. The authors [46] give the correct and evident interpretation of
experimental results:

• This is due to the exclusion of the strong internal conversion and electron-capture channels
in the radioactive decay of these bare nuclei.

Experiments with highly-ionized 57 F eq+ (q = 19 − 25) projectiles at 6 MeV [47] and

125
T eq+ (q = 46 − 48) projectiles at 27 MeV/u [48] have demonstrated a growth (ranging from a
few 10% up to 670%) of nuclear half-lives of Coulomb excited levels due to the direct influence
of the electronic configuration on the internal-conversion coefficients.

2.4 The Effect of Host on the Half-life of 7Be

Norman E.B. et al. [49] measured 7 Be decay rates in gold (Au), graphite, boron nitride and
tantalum (T a). Among these materials , they found that the 7 Be half-life was the longest in
Au and the shortest in graphite. According to their experiments, the decay rate of 7 Be in Au
is lower than that in graphite by (0.38 ± 0.09)%.
Ray A. [51] measured the difference of 7 Be decay rates in Au and Al2 O3 and found that the
decay rate in Au was lower than that in Al2 O3 by (0.72 ± 0.07)%.
Ray A. et al. [50] pointed out that the apparent disagreement between the two sets of
experimental results was most likely due to the choice of different reference samples with which
the comparisons were carried out. Indeed, Norman E.B. et al. [49] used the 7 Li beam for their
implantation studies, whereas Ray A [51] used the proton beam. The radiation damage by

5
7
Li on gold lattice sites, where 7 Be nuclei stop, would be much larger [52] (3 ∗ 10−4 vacan-
cies/Angstrom/ion) than the corresponding damage (10−5 vacancies/angstrom/ion) for proton.
Therefore, the radiation damage effects on lattice due to heavy ion irradiation might also be
partly responsible for apparent discrepancies. It means that to speak about reproducibility in
this case we should take into account at least atomic physics effects that are usually ignored.
The ratio of L to K-shell electron capture in 7 Be bare nucleus shows [53] that the measured
ratio is less than half of the existing data for free 7 Be.

• These discrepancies are most likely due to the distortions of L and K-shell orbitals by
the host medium.

2.5 Controlled Gamma-Decay of Excited Nuclei

According to the modern theory, the spontaneous gamma-decay of excited nuclei in free space
without any material bodies is a noncontrolled process. Probability Aeg of this decay

1 4π 2 ωeg | d~eg |2 ρ(ωeg ) 3

4ωeg | d~eg |2
Aeg ≡ = =
τ 3~ 3~c3
is fully determined by the matrix element d~eg of the nucleus dipole moment and energy of the
nuclear transition hωeg = Ee − Eg .
The total lifetime τtot = τ /(1 + α) and radiative lifetime τ of this excited nucleus in free
space are the constants. Here α is the coefficient of internal electron conversion for the nuclear
transition Ee − Eg .
Problems become very complicated in the important case when material bodies are present
in the surrounding space. Vysotskii V.I. [54] considered the general system which included
the excited atom nucleus, the system of atom electrons, the system of zero-energy (in vacuum
state) electromagnetic modes, and the screen – the system of N resonant or nonresonant atoms
situated at the distance d ≫ λeg = 2πc/ωeg . The authors of [55] concluded that

• It is usually stated that in all cases with the presence of any material bodies at a macro-
scopic distance d ≫ λeg = 2πc/ωeg from the excited nucleus the expression for the lifetime
τ and τtot remains the same or changes by an unmeasurable small value. Such a suppo-
sition is erroneous. It was shown [54] that a spontaneous gamma-decay was a process
of an excited nucleus relaxation, the phase promise of which was caused by interaction
with a fluctuating state of the thermostat at the distance d ≫ λeg from the nucleus. The
phenomenon of a controlled nucleus gamma-decay is a result of interaction of the nucleus
with zero-energy modes, interaction of these modes with the atoms of controlled (and
controlling) screen, and interaction of the nucleus with the system of atom electron.

The increase in radiative lifetime τ of an excited nucleus by 10 − 40% and total lifetime
τtot by 1% was observed in the experiments [55, 56, 57] with gamma-source 57 Co(57∗ F e) and
with gamma-absorber made of stable 57 F e isotope. So these results prove the possibility of
controlled essential influence of a thin resonant screen on the amplitude, space and temporal
characteristics of a spontaneous decay and excited nuclei radiation.

2.6 Okorokov Effect

Let us consider the interaction of an incoming particle (atom or nucleus having the ground state
Eg and the excited state Ee ) with the crystal target. It is possible to choose the conditions

6
[58, 59] when the frequency of a collision particle with the atoms of crystal νcol = V0 /a0 (the
velocity V0 of a particle motion a0 is the distance between the atoms in the crystal) will be
commensurable with the transition frequency νtr of the particle
Ee − Eg n1
νtr = = νcol ,
h n2
where ni - integer numbers. It is clear that at such conditions the interaction between the
particle and atoms of the crystal should have a resonance character.
If the particle interacts with the n atoms of the crystal, then the probability to excite the
particle is equal to
W (n) = W (1)n2 ,
where W (1) is the probability of excitation of the particle by one atom of the crystal.
This is a collective (coherent) amplification mechanism of the excitation for the projectiles
in the periodic field of the crystal predicted first by Okorokov V.V. [58, 59] and observed
experimentally by Okorokov V.V. too [60, 61, 62].
The resonance and coherent amplification of atoms and nuclei excitations by the periodic
fields of crystals is now well established and recognized by the physical society and is used in
different applications but is not known for the cold fusion society.
¿From a modern point of view water has a very complicated geometrical structure as a
collection of quasicrystal clusters ( see [63] and references in it). The hydrogen atom, atoms
and molecules, water and solutions, solid states and condensed matter have the same homology
in the geometric structure, where the de Broglie wave length of electron in the ground state of
hydrogen atom plays the role of the standard one [64].
The puzzle of poor reproducibility of experimental data of LENR is now evident:
• Electrolysis in solutions, discharge in gases and any external influence on atoms leads to
1.The atoms are ionized, thus changing radioactive rates by bound state βb -decay of
nuclei.
2. The ions can be accelerated in a such way that they come to resonance conditions to
intensify excitation of nuclei, atoms,...
3. Even small external fields can induce large responses as an avalanche in the mountains
is stimulated, say, by an accident cry.
A mechanical analogue of the observed phenomenon is the synchronization of oscillations of
the pendulum clock suspended from the moving girder – the Huygens synchronization principle
[65]. The universal resonance synchronization principle for a microsystem (for nuclei, atoms,
molecules for living and nonliving sells,...) was established in [66].
The decrease and increase radioactivity of tritium with increasing temperature in small
titanium particles was observed [67] whereas current experiment and theory overlooked this
effect.

2.7 Nuclei and Atoms as Resonators

In 1953 Schwartz H.M. in 1953 [68] proposed the nuclear and the corresponding atomic tran-
sitions be considered as a unified whole process. This process contains the β decay which
represents the transition of nucleon from one state to an other with emission of electron and
antineutrino and, simultaneously the transition of atomic shell from the initial state to the final
one. A complete and strict solution of this problem is still waiting for its time (see, for example,
a review paper [69]).

7
 The division of decay energy into nuclear and atomic energies has only a conditional sense,
especially, in the resonance case. The process has a resonance charter and its probability is
large when energy differences of nuclear and atomic transitions become close to zero. The
drastic acceleration of decay time in H-like ions of 229m T h may be up to 105 [69], the electron
shell serves as a trigger, reducing the lifetime of the isomer by up to five orders of magnitude.
The fantastic acceleration of decay time for the case E3-transition in 235 U may be up to 20
orders of magnitude.
The probability of the resonance transfer of energy by electrons from the nuclei can be
increased by application of laser, which compensates the defect of resonance. The corresponding
enhancement factor in some cases may be 103 . It is important to note that the knowledge of
isomer energy is not necessary, the laser should be synchronized on the atomic frequency.

• This is a real phenomenon of resonance synchronization (see Appendix) of nuclear, atomic,

and laser frequencies to control the decay processes.

It is also predicted [70] that the lifetime of the hindered photo-fission can be reduced up
to 103 − 104 by application of laser. Laser in a such case changes the angular momentum of a
decaying state by unity practically without altering its energy.

• Low-energy external fields in LENR can play a role of a trigger changing the quantum
numbers of the hindered or forbidden processes so that the first should be enhanced
and the second should be allowed. This mechanism inducing LENR may be the main
reason for poor reproducibility of LENR experiments and main mechanism of geo- and
biotransmutations.

2.8 Geo-, Bio- and Alchimical Transmutations

All the above-described mechanisms of LENR are grounded on the universal resonance synchro-
nization principle (see Appendix). The main requirement of this principle is that the frequencies
νi (ext) of external fields should be commensurable with the frequencies νj (in) of subsystems
making a whole system: νi (ext) = νj (in)n(j)/n(i). We strongly emphasize that the frequencies
of an external field can be inf initly small in comparison with the corresponding frequencies
of subsystems. The frequencies νi (ext) are as triggers starting emission of internal energy. The
enhancement (resonance) effect on LENR induced by external fields can be extremely large
(small) when maximal values of density distributions for external fields and the corresponding
distributions of a subsystem coincide (do not coincide). It means that:

• Even extremely low-energy external fields may induced nuclear transmutations with emis-
sion of internal high energies, according to the universal resonance synchronization prin-
ciple.

Natural geo-transmutations in the atmosphere and earth occur at the points of strong change
in geo- and electromagnetic fields [71, 72, 73]. V.I. Vysotsky and A.A. Kornilova published an
excellent book: ≪Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological System≫ [74], we
refer a reader to this book.
It seems (for F.A.Gareev) that the fact that some alchemists may [75] ≪change base metals
into nobel ones, silver or gold≫ does not contradict the mechanisms of LENR described above.

8
2.9 Ball lightning as a macroscopic low energy nuclear reactor
All internal contradictions of the previous theories of a ball lightning were based, by default,
on an assumption that the ball lightning is a plasmoid. In order to maintain the macroscopic
volume of air (the mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, etc.) in ionized condition, it is
necessary to provide a great amount of energy from some kind of a source. Many experimenters,
among them are such well-known experts as P.L. Kapitsa, made repeated attempts to create a
long-living spherical plasmoid in laboratory conditions. However, no efficient ways of supplying
the isolated plasma clots with energy and maintaining them in a stationary condition for a few
minutes (that is the lifetime of a natural ball lightning) could be found.
The purpose of this paper is to substantiate a hypothesis that the natural ball lightning
is an area of space where the chain nuclear reaction of the bound-state β-decay of radioactive
phosphorus nuclei takes place. It is shown that the analyzed phenomenon is related to the
physics of electrical discharge in gases indirectly. Therefore, the term globular lightning is not
sufficiently correct.
The main hypothesis which is asserted hereinafter was formulated for the first time in [76].
The logic of the creation of this hypothesis is as follows:

1. Ball lightning always leaves a smell of sulphur, ozone, and nitrogen oxide after itself [77].

2. Sulphur can be generated only as a result of phosphorus β-decay [78].

3. Rate constant of β-decay depends on a lot of the ionization degree of decaying radionu-
clide [33]. The half-life of ionized radiophosphorus is approximately 1-2 minutes and is
comparable with the lifetime of ball lightning in natural conditions.

4. Radiophosphorus is abundant in nature. It is found in rain-water in macroscopic amounts

[79]

This model was proved in [76] and we can say that it is now confirmed. Thus, it is a type
of a natural low-energy nuclear reactor.

2.10 Demkov and Meyer super-focusing

The ion flux transmission through a monocrystalline medium is accompanied by many inter-
esting and unexplained phenomena (see a review papers [93, 94]). Among them we indicate
the effect of ”channeling” in crystals: the enhancement and reduction of flux near crystal-
loghraphic directions. Yu.N. Demkov and J.D. Meyer [95] propose to use a ”channeling” effect
in the stimulation and enhancement of LENR by following way:
”A highly collimated beam of protons (≈ 1 MeV) entering the channel of a monoctystal film
forms at a certain depth an extremely sharp (¡0.005 nm) and relatively long (some monolayers
of the crystal) focusing area where the increase of the flux can reach thousand times. Impinging
atoms in this focusing area can undergo nuclear reactions with proper foreign dopants which
disappear if the crystal is tilted from this position by only radians. This effect can be called
super-focusing in the channels, in contrast to the ordinary flux peaking where the increase of
flux reaches only few times. Results are confirmed by the Monte Carlo calculations accounting
for several properties of the real lattice.”

9
3 Conclusions
We have concluded that LENR is possible in the framework of the modern physical theory -
the universal resonance synchronization principle and based on it different enhancement mech-
anisms of reaction rates are responsible for it2 . Investigation of this phenomenon requires the
knowledge of different branches of science: nuclear and atomic physics, chemistry and electro-
chemistry, condensed matter and solid state physics,... The results of this research field can
provide a new source of energy, substances, and technologies.
The puzzle of poor reproducibility of experimental data is due to the fact that LENR occurs
in open systems and is extremely sensitive to parameters of external fields. Poor reproducibility
and unexplained results do not mean that the experiment is wrong3 .

4 Appendix
The Universal Resonance Principle of Synchronization

Many objects in Nature - elementary particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules,..., DNA, pro-
teins, etc. are built as self-consistent hierarchical systems and have the same homologi-
cal constructions in the sense that they are found by the same fundamental physical laws:
energy-momentum conservation law and sectorial conservation law (the second Kepler law).
Schrodinger [81] wrote that an interaction between microscopic physical objects is controlled
by specific resonance laws. According to these laws, any interaction in a microscopic hierarchic
wave system exhibits the resonance character. The difference between eigenenergies (eigenfre-
quences) in one system should be equal to each other
′ ′ ′ ′
hν1 − hν1 = hν2 − hν2 , ν1 − ν1 = ν2 − ν2 . (1)

Therefore, eigenfrequencies are additive. In other words, the resonance condition is formulated
in the following way: oscillations participating in an interaction process should be constituents
of the same frequencies. Thus, we come to the important conclusion: in the whole interact-
ing self–consistent wave system the hierarchy of frequencies is established. So the sum of all
partial frequencies is the integral of motion. Due to the above-said, the corresponding partial
motions are determinate. This determinism arises as a consequence of the energy conservation
law. As the resonance condition arises from the fundamental energy conservation law, the
rhythms and synchronization of the majority of phenomena to be observed are the reflection
of the universal property of self–organization of the Universe. The resonance synchronization
principle is substantiated at the microscopic level (see, for details [82]) as the consequence of
energy conservation law and resonance character of any interaction between wave systems. In
this paper, we have demonstrated the universality of the resonance synchronization principle
independent of substance, fields and interactions for microsystems. Thereby, we bring some
arguments in favor of the mechanism - ORDER from ORDER, declared by Schrodinger in [83],
fundamental problem of contemporary science. We come to a conclusion [84] that a stable
proton and a neutron play the role of a standard for other elementary particles and nuclei.
They contain all necessary information about the structure of other particles and nuclei. This
2
Intensification of LENR using superwave excitation [80] is based on this principle.
3
Solutions of salts, electrolytes and living systems contain a large amount of ions. In these cases the bound
state βb -decay and other described above enhancement mechanisms of LENR can play an essential role. Unfor-
tunately, we do not know the works devoted to this problem.

10
information is used and reproduced by simple rational relations, according to the fundamental
conservation law of energy-momentum. We originated the principles of commensurability and
self-similarity [85]. The commensurability and self–similarity result in the very unity of the
world. The principle of commensurability is displayed in phenomena in different branches of
science [85].
All material objects (micro– and macrosystems), which are described by standing waves,
know all about each other. Each object is the scaled one of the other and it is not possible
to say which is more ≪fundamental≫. In this work, we have demonstrated that the structure
of DNA and cell molecules can be calculated with some structure of a hydrogen atom. The
interatomic distances in cell molecules are quantized according to the quantization rule of the
fractional Hall effect. Therefore, we can conclude that the structure of DNA and cell molecules
can be established from the analysis of hydrogen spectra using the quantization rule of the Hall
effect and vice versa [86]. The bridge between the structure of a hydrogen atom, cell molecules
and the Hall effect exists! It is very surprising that there are phenomena in Nature that are
really described by simple rational relations. Only the fundamental conservation law of energy
– momentum is responsible for this harmonic movement.
The resonance principle of synchronization became a fruitful interdisciplinary science of
general laws of self-organized processes in different branches of physics. It is intriguing to
speculate that many questions can now be formulated as a result of universality of the resonance
synchronization principle independent of substance, fields, matter and interactions for micro-
and macrosystems [86]. Information concerning important details of an ecosystem’s evolution
is contained in frequency spectra. Therefore, matter turns out to be a form of organized
information. The Universe was arranged according to number, harmony, and perfect forms.
A new concept in evolution is robustness. One suggests simulating evolution of complex
organisms constrained by the sole requirement of robustness in their expression patterns. Ro-
bustness in biophysics is defined as the ability to function in face of substantial changes in
components. Robustness is implemented by constraining subsequent patterns to have similar
expression patterns. Key properties of biochemical networks are robust, i.e., they are insensi-
tive to precise values of the biochemical parameters [87]. Robustness is an important ingredient
in simple molecular networks and, probably, also an important feature of gene regulation. S.
Bornhold and K. Sneppen [88] suggest considering robustness as an evolutionary principle. We
came to the conclusion that the robustness principle can be understood in the framework of
the universal resonance synchronization principle.
We have concluded that the homology of atom and molecule structures exists. It means
that the de Broglie wave length λe of electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom plays
the standard role – all interatomic distances in molecules could be commensurable with λe .
There are huge examples of commensurable ratios between the interatomic distances and λe in
superconducting, nanomaterials, DNA, protein, . . . , living molecules [86].
A molecule is an aggregate of atoms in a distinct three dimensional arrangement. Distances
between atoms fix the structure of the molecules, as was so forcefully emphasized by L. Pauling.
These interatomic distances depend on the resonance interactions between atoms and also on
the sizes of atoms. We come to the conclusion that each object in the hierarchical system is
scaled one of the other and it is impossible to say which is more ≪fundamental≫. We assume
now, as a working hypothesis, that the De Broglie electron wave length in a hydrogen atom
in the ground state can be considered as a standard of dimensions for atoms and interatomic
distances in molecules. So interatomic distances and radii of atoms can be written in the

11
following way:
n1
R= λe , (2)
n2
where λe = 0.33249185 nm is the de Broglie electron wave length in a hydrogen atom in the
ground state and n1 (n2 ) = 1, 2, 3, ....

• Note that the quantization conditions for the fractional Hall effect [86] are the same as (2).
It means that the fractional Hall effect demonstrates only the commensurable velocities of
electrons in hydrogen atoms and GaAs-type heterostructures (two-dimensional electron
gas). So there is no room for interpretation of the fractional Hall effect in terms of the
fractional charge. Nobody observed the fractional charge in Nature.

It is well known in optics (in quantum mechanics too) that the transition coefficient of light
through the layer is equal to one if the following relations between the thickness R of the layer
and wave length λe exist
n
R = λe , n = 1, 2, 3, . . . . (3)
4
It is interesting to note that: 1) the Bohr quantization conditions λN = Nλe for a hydrogen
atom and the quantization conditions λN = Nλ4 He for superfluid 4 He coincide with (3) if
N = n/4; 2) the Tomasch quantization conditions for tunneling are the same as (3).
We have carried out a systematic analysis of interatomic distances for a huge number of
systems, using (3), in which λ = λe is the electron wave length in the ground state of a hy-
drogen atom. We came to the conclusion that the superconductivity can be explained by the
assumption: channel motions in systems like that and electron motion in the ground state of
a hydrogen atom are exactly synchronous. Therefore, superconductivity systems represent a
coherent synchronized state – complex of coupled resonators with the commensurable frequen-
cies.

• It means that we have in principle found out the possibility to achieve superconductivity
at room temperature [86].

The parameter–free formula for interatomic distances in biomoleculas, superconducters, and

size of nanostructures has been obtained. This establishes some bridge between the structures of
different phenomena (conductivity, superconductivity, insulator–metal transmission, quantum
Hall effect, superfluidity, quantization of nanostructure cluster size, size of biomolecules). This
connection can be considered as an indication of existence of some physical phenomena in the
structures of the superconducting and living systems.
We have shown [86] only a small part of our calculations by formula (3) and the correspond-
ing comparison with experimental data for interatomic distances in some molecules. One can
be surprised by a high accuracy description of the existing experimental data.
Understanding of the origin and evolution of the genetic code must be the basis for a detailed
knowledge of the relationship between the basic building blocks of DNA and environment.
As is widely accepted today, essentially all the DNA in an eukaryotic nucleus are formed of
histones and different chromatin structures folded hierarchically. At least five orders of DNA
and chromatin organization and folding (nucleotide, helix, nucleosome, solenoid and chromatin
fibre loop) have been described in literature. A DNA chain is a long unbranched polimer
composed of only four types of subunits. These are nucleotides containing the basis adenin
(A), cytozine (C), guanin (G), and thymine (T). These nucleotides form complementary flat
pairs and the distances between these plains are equal to λe .

12
 • It means that the structures, formed in DNA molecules by nucleotides, produce the two–
and three–dimensional waveguide.

All proteins look like dimers in which the two copies of the recognition helix are separated
by exactly one turn of the DNA helix: 3.4 nm ⇔ 10λe = 3.325 nm.
The DNA is packaged with histones into regularly repeating nucleosomes that are packed
into 30 nm (it’s diameter) fibers; 30 = 90λe = 29.92 nm, it is also elaborated folded and
organized by other proteins into a series of subdomains of distinct character. This higher–order
packing is the most fascinating and also most poorly understood aspect of chromatin.
Molecules of DNA, amino acids, proteins, . . . contain tetrahedral blocks H3 C − C with the
angles < HCH = < HCH = 109.47◦, with the bond length 3d(H − C) = λe = 0.3325 nm and
3d(H −C)+d(C −C) = 3/2λe = 0.4987 nm. Note that these molecules of amino acids and DNA
have planar blocks H2 N −C, whose bond length is equal to 2d(H −N)+d(N −C) = λe = 0.332
nm. Pentagonal rings in adenin and guanin have the bond length equal to 0.668 and 0.666 nm,
respectively, which is close to 2λe = 0.665 nm.
Many distances in living molecules are commensurable with the de Broglie wave length λe
of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom. This means that λe play the role of the
standard distance in molecules, especially in living molecules. Hence, the electron motions in a
hydrogen atom and in living molecules are synchronized and self-consistent. A hydrogen atom
represents radiating and accepting antennas swapping the information with the surrounding
substance.
M. Gryzinski [90, 91, 92] has proved that atoms are the quasi–crystal structure with definite
angles: 90◦ , 109◦ and 120◦ , which are the well-known angles in crystallography.

• We have proved the homology of atom, molecule, and crystal structures.

So the resonance synchronization principle is substantiated at the microscopic level as the

consequence of the energy conservation law and resonance character of any interaction between
wave systems. The commensurability and self-similarity result in the very unity of the world.
It means that our method can be used in different fields of fundamental researches and also
in applications: construction of new materials, say, high–temperature superconductors, new
drugs in medicine, new methods in diagnostics of diseases, and new devices by analogy with
biomolecules.

Atoms as open systems

The conservation laws fulfill for a closed systems. Therefore, the failure of parity in week
interactions means that the corresponding systems are the open systems. Periodic variations (24
hours, 27, and 365 days [21, 22, 24, 25]) in β-decay rates indicate that failure of parity in week
interactions have a cosmophysical origin. The charged particles moving with acceleration should
radiate (absorb) electromagnetic waves - the fundamental classical electrodynamics low. The
stable orbits of electrons in atoms are exist, but electrons do not radiate on them according to
third Bohr’s postulate (third Bohr’s postulate in 1913 - ”Despite the fact that it is constantly
accelerating, an electron moving in such an allowed orbit does not radiate electromagnetic
energy. Thus, its total energy E remains constant.”). Why electrons do not radiate on the
stable state of atoms - nobody knows it. We formulate as a working hypothesis the following
assumptions:

13
 • The classical lows of physics are valid for macro- and microsystems. Contradiction be-
tween classical electrodynamics and quantum theory should be solved a very simple way.
Proton and electron in hydrogen atom move with the same frequency, their motions are
synchronized. A hydrogen atom represents radiation and accepting antennas (dipole) in-
terchanging of energy with the surrounding substance. This energy is the relict radiation
energy.

• The relict radiation (T=2.725 K) should play a role of conductor for proton and electron
motions in the hydrogen atom due to the universal resonance synchronization principle.
The external field - relict radiation field and hydrogen atom form an auto-oscillation
system in which the frequencies of an external field and frequencies of the whole subsystem
are commensurable. The demand for frequency commensurability means that all motions
are in a co-ordination (in resonance).

• The sum of radiate and absorb energies by electron and proton moving in an allowed
orbit is equal to zero. THUS, ITS TOTAL ENERGY E REMAINS CONSTANT - only
the last part of the third Bohr’s postulate is correct.

• The relict radiation is a result of the selforganization of stable hydrogen atom according
to the universal resonance synchronization principle.

References
[1] Rutherford E., Chadwick J., and Ellis C.D. Radiations from Radioactive Substancs, Cam-
bridge univ. Press, 1930.

[2] Emery C.T.//Annual rev. of Nucl. Sci. 1972, V22, p.165.

[3] Meyer S., Schweidler E. Radioactivitat. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 2nd ed., 1927.

[4] Kohlrausch K.W.F. Radioactivitat, Handbuch der Experimentalphysik, Vol.15, Leipzig:

Akademische verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1928.

[5] Bothe W. Handbuch der Physik, ed. H. Geiger, K. Scheel, Berlin: Springer 2nd ed., 1933,
Vol.22-1, p.201.

[6] Curie M., Kamerlingh Onnes M., Le Radium, 1913, V10, p.181.

[7] Rutherford E., Petavel J.E., Brit. Assoc., advan. Sci., Rep.A, 1907, p.456; Rutherford E.
Collected Papers, New York: Interscience, 1963, Vol.2, p.36

[8] Segre E., Phys. Rev., 1947, V71, p.274.

[9] Daudel R., Rev. Sci., Paris, 1947, V85, p.162.

[10] Bouchez R., Daudel R., Daudel P., Muxart R., J. Phys. Radium, 1947, V8, p.336.

[11] Cooper J.A., Hollander J.M., Rassmusen J.O., Phys. Rev. Let., 1965, V15, p.680.

[12] Ohtsuki T., Yuki H., Muto M., Kasagi J., Ohno K., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, V.93, p.112501-
1.

14
[13] DeBenedetti S., Des. Barros., Hoy G.R.//Ann. Rev. Nucl.Sci., 1966, V.16, p.31.

[14] Starodubchev C.B. Transmutations of nuclei and atomic shells (in Russian). Book 1.
Tashkent 1969.

[15] Konopinski E.J. The Theory of Beta Radioactivity. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1966.

[16] Schopper H.F. Weak Interactions and Nuclear Beta Decay. Amsterdam: North-Holland,
1966.

[17] Wu C.S., Moszkowski S.A. Beta Decay. New York: Interscience-Wiley, 1966.

[18] Bouchez R., Depommier P., Rep. Prog. Phys., 1960, V.23, p.395.

[19] Berenyi D., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1968, V.40, p.390.

[20] Spector R.M., Phys. Rev., 1972, A5, p.1323.

[21] Shnol S.E. et al., UFN (in Russian), 1998, V.168, p.1129.

[22] Baurov Yu.A., Shutov V.L., Prikladnaja Fizika (in Russian), 1995, V.1, p.40.

[23] Baurov Yu.A., Kondratov A.A., Kushniruk V.F., Sobolev Yu.G., Scientific report 1995-
1996, ”Heavy Ion Physics”, Preprint JINR E7-97-206, p.354, Dubna, 1997.

[24] Baurov Yu.A., Konradov A.A., Sobolev Yu.G., E-print hep-ex/9809014, 16 September,
1998.

[25] Baurov Yu.A., et al., Modern Phys. Lett., 2001, A16, No32, p.2089.

[26] Hagelstein P.I., McKubre M.C.H., Nagel D.J., Chubb T.A. and Hekman R.J., New Physical
Effects in Metal Deuterides. 2004.

[27] Krivit S.V., Winocur N. The Rebirth of Cold Fusion, Los Angeles, 2004.

[28] Kirkinski v.A., Novikov Yu.A. Theoretical Modeling of Cold Fusion, Novosibirsk, 2002.

[29] Urutskoev L.I., Liksonov V.I., Tsinoev V.G., Prikladnaja Fizika (in Russian) 2000, V.4,
p.83.

[30] Urutskoev L.I., Liksonov V.I., Tsinoev V.G., Annales de la foundation de Broglie, 2002,
V.27, p.701.

[31] Balakirev V.F., et al.,Transmutations of Chemical Elements, Ekaterinberg, UrO RAN,

2003.

[32] Kuznetzov V.D. et al., Annalesde la fondation de Broglie. 2003, V.28, p.173.

[33] Gareev F.A., Zhidkova I.E., Ratis Yu.L., Preprint JINR P4-2004-68 (in russian), Dubna,
2004.

[34] Gareev F.A., Zhidkova I.E., Ratis Yu.L., Proceedings of the 11-th Russian Conference on
Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical Elements and Ball Lighting, Dagomys, city of
Sochi, September 28 – October 5, 2003, Moscow 2004, p.169.

15
[35] Gareev F.A., Gareeva G.F., Zhidkova I.E., Geoinformatika (in russian), 2003, V1, p.51.

[36] Gareev F.A., Ratis Yu.L., Science, Economy and Management, Samara, 2002, V3, p.103.

[37] Nagel D.J., Godick J., Proceedings of ICCF-10, 2003.

[38] Daudel R., Jean M., Lecoin M., J. Phys. Radium, 1947, V.8, p.238.

[39] Bahcall J.N., Phys. Rev., 1962, V.124, p.495.

[40] Batkin I.S.,Izv. AN SSSR, ser. fiz. (in russian), 1976, V.49, p.1279.

[41] Kopytin I.V., Doktorskaja dissertachija (in Russian), Voronezh, 1986.

[42] Takahashi K., Yokoi K., Nucl. Phys., 1983, A404, p.578.

[43] Takahashi K., Boyd R.N., Mathews G.J., Yokoi K., Phys. Rev. 1987, C36, p.1522.

[44] Jung M., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1992, V.69, p.2164.

[45] Bosch F., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1995, V.77, p.5190.

[46] Litvinov Yu.A., et al., Phys. Lett., 2003, B573, p.80.

[47] Phillips W.R., et al., Phys. Rev., 1993, A47, p.3682.

[48] Attallah F., et al., Phys. Rev., 1997, C55, p.1665.

[49] Norman E.B., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2001, B519, p.15.

[50] Ray A., Das P., Saha S.K., Das S.K., Phys. Lett., 2002, B531, p.187.

[51] Ray A. et al., Phys. Lett., 1999, B455, p.69.

[52] Ziegler I.F., Bierserk J.P., Littmark U., The Stopping range in Solids, Pergamon, New
York, 1985.

[53] Voytas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2002, V.88, p.012501.

[54] Vysotskii V.I., Phys. Rev., 1998, C58, p.337.

[55] Vysotskii V.I., Kornilova A.A., Sorokin A.A., Komisarova V.A., Reiman S.I., Riasnii G.K.,
Laser Physics, 2001, V.11, No.3, p.1.

[56] Vysotskii V.I., Bugrov V.P., Kuzmin A.A., et al., Hyperfine Interactions, 1997, v.107,
p.277.

[57] Vysotskii V.I., Bugrov V.P., Kornilova A.A., Reiman S.I., International Conf. on the
physics of Nuclear Science and Technology, Proceedings 1998, V.2, p.1739.

[58] Okorokov V.V., Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 1965, V.2, p.719; Jadernaja Fizika (in Russian), 1965,
V.2, p.1009.

[59] Okorokov V.V., JETP Lett. (in Russian), 1965, V.2, p.111.

16
[60] Okorokov V.V., et al., JETP Lett. (in Russian), 1972, V.16, p.588; JETP Lett., 1972,
V.16.,p.415; 1973, A43, 485.

[61] Okorokov V.V., et al., Preprint ITEP No19, 1973.

[62] Okorokov V.V., Proceedings of FPV-2002, Novosibirsk, 2002, p.48.

[63] Senin S.V. The Water, Moscow, 2004.

[64] Gareev F.A., Gareeva G.F. In: FPB-00, Novosibirsk, July 2000, p.161.

[65] Blechman I.I., Synchronization in Nature and Technology (in Russian), 1981, Moscow,
Nauka.

[66] Gareev F.A., Gareeva G.F., in Proc. of the 1st Intern. Workshop, Saint-Petersburg, 18-21
June 2000, Sarov, 2001, p.179.

[67] Reifenschweiler O., Phys. Lett., 1994, A184, p.149.

[68] Schwartz H.M., J. Chem. Phys., 1953, V.21, p.45.

[69] Karpeshin F.F., Hyperfine Interaction, 2002, V.143, p.79; Karpeshin F.F., Novikov
Yu.N.,Trzhaskovskaya M.B., Yad. Fiz., 2004, V.66, p.234.

[70] Gangrski Yu.P., Markov B.N., Nuclei on ray of laser (in Russian), Moscow, 1984.

[71] Krivizski V.A., Transmutations of Chemical Elements in Evalutions of Earth (in Russian).
Moscow, 2003.

[72] Jones S.E., Ellsworth J.E., 10th Intern. Conf. on Cold Fusion, 2003, Cambridge, Ma:
LENR-CANR.org.

[73] Mamyrin B.A., Tolstixin I.N., Isotops of He in Nature (in Russian), Moscow, 1981.

[74] Vysotskii V.I., Kornila A.A., Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological
Systems, Moscow, 2003.

[75] Perez-Pariente J., J.Scientific Exploration, 2002, V.4, p.593.

[76] Ratis Yu.L. Natural Science. Economy. Management. Special Issue. Samara. SSAU, 2003,
p.4.; Ratis Yu.L. Ball lightening as macroscopical quantum phenomena, monography,
Samara, SSC RAS, 2004, 132 p., Preprint JINR P4-2004-67, Dubna 2004.

[77] Smirnov B.M., UFN, 1990, V.160, N.4, p.1.

[78] Selinov I.P. Isotopes, V.1, M: Science, 1970.

[79] Lal D., Narasappaya N., Zutshi P.K., Nucl. Phys., 1957, V.3, p.69.

[80] Dardik I., et al., in Tenth Intern. Conf. on Cold Fusion . 2003.Cambridge, MA: LENR-
CANR.org.

[81] Schrodinger E. Brit. J. Philos. Sci., 3(1952)233.

17
[82] Gareev F.A. Preprint No 13-98 (in Russian), Institute of Nuclear Physics, Alma-Ata, 1998,
p.115.

[83] Schrodinger E., WHAT IS LIFE ? The Physical Aspects of the Living Cell, 1955.

[84] Gareev F.A. In: ISINN-VII, Dubna, May 25-28, 1999, p.71.

[85] Gareev F.A. JINR Communications E4-97-25, Dubna, 1997; JINR Communications E4-
96-456, Dubna, 1996;

[86] Gareev F.A. In: FPB-98, Novosibirsk, June 1998, p.92.; Gareev F.A., Gareeva G.F. In:
FPB-00, Novosibirsk, July 2000, p.161.; Gareev F.A., Zhidkova I.E. In: FPB-02, Novosi-
birsk, July 2002.

[87] Alon U., Surette M.G., Barkai N., Leibler S., Nature 397(1999)168-171.

[88] Bornhold S., Sneppen K.. NORDITA preprint - 99/83 CM, Copenhagen, 1999.

[89] Pauling L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell University Press, 1960.

[90] Gryzinski M., In: FPB-00, Novosibirsk, July 2000, p.89, 2001; Sprawa Atomu, Hamo-
Sapiens, Warszawa, 2002.

[91] Gryzinski M., Preciesly about Atom (in Russian), Novosibirsk, 2004.

[92] Gryzinski M., Jour. Chem. Phys., 1975, V.62, p.2629; Phys. Lett., 1972, A41, p.69.

[93] Gibson W.M., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci., 1975, V.25, p.465.

[94] Karamyan S.A., Gruner F., Assmann W., Preprint JINR E14-2003-24, Dubna, 2003.

[95] Demkov Yu. N., Meyer J.D., in: Proc. Symp. Channeling - Bent Crystals - Radiation
Processes, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 5-6 June 2003, p.115.

18