Theories of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations

Abstract: Employing concrete examples from nuclear physics it is shown that low energy nuclear reactions can and have been induced by all of the four fundamental interactions (i) (stellar) gravitational, (ii) strong, (iii) electromagnetic and (iv) weak. Differences are highlighted through the great diversity in the rates and similarity through the nature of the nuclear reactions initiated by each.

\section{Introduction \label{intro}}

We show below through physical examples that low energy nuclear reactions have been
induced by {\em all} of the four fundamental interactions: gravitational, strong,
electromagnetic and weak.
\medskip
\par \noindent
{\bf Gravity}:  Gravitational interactions are well known to cause nuclear reactions
and fusion in a star. Were it not for nuclear activity, a star would be dynamically
unstable and undergo gravitational collapse\cite{Bethe, BetheNobel}. In fact, standard
theory predicts the collapse of a star when the nuclear fuel is exhausted as the star
can no longer counteract the inward compression due to gravitation.
\medskip
\par \noindent
{\bf Nuclear}: A laboratory example of low energy strong interaction fusion is provided
by a fast discharge in fine deuterated polymer fibers. In such fibers, deuterons are
accelerated to speeds  high enough to overcome the barrier due to mutual
Coulomb repulsion, giving rise to the production of $2.5\ MeV$ neutrons through low
energy reactions such as
\begin{equation}
\label{W1}
d + d \rightarrow  n +\ ^3{\rm He}.
\end{equation}
In the same set of experiments\cite{Stephanakis}, also {\it non deuterated} fibers
exhibit an ``anomalous'' production of neutrons, at a rate over 6 orders of magnitude
larger than that expected through natural contamination of deuterons in a normal material.
Such experimental evidence strongly suggests an explanation in terms of weak interaction
induced nuclear reactions\cite{Pramana}. This will be discussed in a later
Sec.{\ref{Nondeuterated}}.
\medskip
\par \noindent
{\bf Electromagnetic}: Purely electromagnetically induced fusion has been observed through the
Coulomb explosion of large deuterium clusters -stripped of their electrons by lasers- and
their subsequent blow up resulting in nuclear fusion\cite{Zweiback}. In more recent experiments,
other charged nuclei have been exploded and the ensuing nuclear reactions have been observed.
\medskip
\par \noindent
{\bf Weak}: In the corona of the Sun, magnetic fields emerge from one sunspot to dive into
another. The coronal magnetic field accelerates the electrons and protons enough to cause
production of neutrons through weak interactions\cite{WSL}. These neutrons then cause further
nuclear transmutations of the available material accounting for the presence of
anomalously formed nuclei on the surface of the Sun and in the Solar
corona\cite{Wurz, Cowley, Goriely, Lodders}.

Once in a while, magnetic flux tubes explode leading to spectacular solar flares releasing
extremely high energy particles some of which reaching the earth. Often, the resultant
electromagnetic fields are large enough to disturb terrestrial satellite communications and
secondary muons produced in the upper atmosphere in sufficient numbers to have been detected
in the underground CERN L3+C detector\cite{Pramana,L3}.

In the following work, we shall analyze in some detail, various mechanisms and phenomena found both
in Nature and in the laboratory related to low energy nuclear reactions. We shall  make a
general classification of these diverse phenomena in order to delineate common themes (such
as collectivity, thermal or non-thermal nature of their induction) as well as profound
differences (such as the time scale for induction by a particular interaction) between nuclear
reactions caused by different interactions under diverse circumstances. We shall also illustrate
the interplay between various interactions necessary for the genesis of a given physical process.
For the energy production in a star, all four interactions are essential.

\section{Gravitational LENT \label{GLENT}}

\subsection{From Helmholtz  to Bethe \label{HB}}
In the standard model of star formation, collectivity plays a central role. It is asserted
that undamped density fluctuations cause an astronomically large number of interstellar gas
(essentially hydrogen) to clump together, whereupon gravity begins to compress them further
thereby increasing the protostar's temperature.

To appreciate the subtle interplay existing between different interactions in causing nuclear
reactions, the leitmotif of our paper, it is useful to recall the paradigm shifts in the view
that earlier physicists had to make regarding the main source of a star's energy production and
stability, as recounted by Hans Bethe\cite{BetheNobel}, a leading architect of gravitational low
energy nuclear theory (Gravitational LENT).

To estimate the stability of a star, say our Sun, Helmholtz -around the 1850's- was the first
to use the only tool available to him: Newtonian gravity. If one gram of matter falls on the
Sun's surface, it acquires a potential energy $(\Delta E)_{pot}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{G1}
\frac{\Delta E_{pot}}{\rm gm}
= - \frac{GM}{R} = - 1.91 \times  10^{15}\ \frac{\rm erg}{\rm gm}\ .
\end{equation}
A similar energy must have been set free when the Sun was assembled. Through the virial theorem,
he argued, one half of it must have been set free as kinetic energy [which allows us to estimate
the temperature] and the other half must have been radiated away. At present, the outward flux
of radiation from our Sun is
\begin{equation}
\label{G2}
{\cal F}_{radiation} = 1.96\ \frac{\rm erg}{\rm gm\ sec}\ .
\end{equation}
Hence, it was estimated that if gravitation supplies the energy, then in
\begin{math} 10^{15}\ {\rm sec}\approx 30{\rm \ million\ years} \end{math} the Sun would have
radiated away all its energy and would have undergone a gravitational collapse. But Darwin, other
biologists and geologists argued with Helmholtz (and Kelvin\cite{Kelvin}, who concurred with Helmholtz) that
they  needed a much longer life time for the Sun and that his gravitational mechanism for the
source of energy production in the Sun must be in error. Of course, they were right. In fact,
as we will see, gravitation supplies the necessary force to hold and compress the particles
collectively and raise their temperature for positively charged nuclei to overcome the Coulomb
barrier but it is the weak force which ignites the nuclear fire by providing neutrons without
which no deuterons or heavier nuclei could be formed.

In 1895, radioactivity in the weak sector of the standard model of
fundamental interactions would be discovered by Henri Becquerel, Pierre Curie and Marie Curie
and through it the age of the Earth  and later that of meteorites and other geological objects
would be determined. One deduces the age of the Sun from that of the meteorites to be 4.5 billion
years in close agreement with the age 4.56 billions deduced from Solar oscillations\cite{AgeSun}.
Clearly, we need some interaction other than gravitation to fuel the Sun.

Since the Sun has existed for at least 4.5 billion years, we may deduce that the gain in energy
per gm to be provided by whatever agency must be at least
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta E_{gain}}{\rm gm} \gtrsim\ 3 \times 10^{17}\ \frac{\rm erg}{\rm gm}\ .
\label{G3}
\end{equation}
If not gravitation, then which of the other three EM, weak or strong can be the source? If for simplicity
we assume that initially we only had electrons and protons and we want to fuse the protons into
heavier nuclei, then we need the intervention of neutrons. Electromagnetism can not do it by itself because
it can not change the charge. Also, the direct strong interaction between two protons to change their
charges is well nigh negligible since  the temperature of the core is estimated to be about
\begin{math} T_{core}\approx 17\ {\rm million\  K} \end{math}. This corresponds to a mean thermal energy
for the electrons and protons to be a mere \begin{math} 1.46\ {\rm KeV}\end{math}. Hence, the only
alternative left is to invoke the weak interaction. The Fermi theory does provide
a possibility of neutron production through the inverse beta decay
\begin{equation}
\label{G4}
e^- + p^+ \rightarrow n + \nu_e
\end{equation}
This reaction was first proposed by Wick and later independently by Yukawa and Sakata for
the observed phenomena of electron capture from the K and L shells from a large proton rich nucleus.
But notice that in an electron capture, the electron is bound near the nucleus, the proton is bound within the
nucleus and the subsequent neutron remains bound to the nucleus. All that escapes is the unobserved
neutrino. Of course, this is not quite exact. As the closest to nucleus electron disappears, a higher
shell electron jumps down to replace it, a third to displace the second, etc., thus leading to a
cascade of emitted photons. It is precisely through the emitted photons, chiefly in the X-ray region,
that the process can be directly registered at all.  Alvarez\cite{Alvarez} provided the first clinching experimental
evidence that the \begin{math} ^{67}{\rm Ga} \end{math} nucleus captures one of its
orbital electrons and converts to the stable nucleus \begin{math} ^{67}{\rm Zn} \end{math}.

The life time of K capture and hence the transformation of one atom to a different atom can be of the
order of seconds to months depending upon the mass difference between the parent and the daughter atom.
It is well to remember that even in the vacuum, prior to the intervention of temperature, several orders
of magnitude difference in the rates  can occur due to differences in phase space.

Instead, for the reaction in Eq.(\ref{G4}), both the electron and the proton have negligible kinetic
energy on the nuclear \begin{math} {\rm MeV} \end{math} scale. Hence, the mean \begin{math} Q \end{math} of the
reaction is negative: \begin{math} Q \approx - 0.78\ {\rm MeV} \end{math}. One may consider the thermally
induced process
\begin{equation}
\label{G5}
W_{\rm thermal} + e^- + p^+ \rightarrow\ n + \nu_e,
\end{equation}
where the thermal radiation \begin{math} W_{\rm thermal} \end{math}
supplies kinetic energy to the initial system. But the available thermal  energy even near the core
of the Sun  \begin{math} \sim KeV \end{math} is miniscule in comparison with the threshold energy
\begin{math} \sim 0.78 {\rm MeV} \end{math} required for the reaction to proceed. Hence, the process
can occur through thermal fluctuations albeit with an exceedingly small probability.

The dramatic difference between the time scales involved between this case, Bethe's estimate for the
core of the Sun is \begin{math} 10^{30}{\rm \ years} \end{math}, and the observed K captures,
typically a few days, is due to the large exponential threshold barrier in the first case. This will
be of crucial interest for us in what follows, where the reaction in Eq.(\ref{G4}) would be invoked
for specially designed condensed matter systems in which the electron kinetic energy can be boosted
enough or in a relativistically covariant language, the electron mass can get renormalized by external
electric fields radiated from currents,
\begin{equation}
\label{G6}
W_{\rm EM} + (N+1) e^- + p^+ \rightarrow n + N e^- + \nu_e ,
\end{equation}
so as to overcome the threshold barrier \begin{math} Q \end{math} value turning positive, as in the
electron capture case, with substantial rates for neutron production. In Eq.(\ref{G6}), anticipating
effects due to electron collectivity, we have generalized the reaction in Eq.(\ref{G4}) to the case of
\begin{math} N + 1 \end{math} initial electrons which end up with \begin{math} N \end{math} final
electrons after the weak destruction of a single electron. As we shall see in Sec.(\ref{Betatron}), the
presence of a large number of electrons in dense matter systems can, through the Darwin interaction,
change the energy distribution of a single electron. In such cases, the rates for the reaction
in Eq.(\ref{G6}) can be quite different from that of Eq.(\ref{G5}) or for electron capture.

\subsection{Two Proton Channel Rates \label{2P}}

\begin{figure}
\scalebox {0.6}{\includegraphics{gfig1}}
\caption{Shown is the Feynman diagram for the reaction
$p^+ +p^+ \to d^+ +e^+ +\nu_e $ as in Eq.(\ref{K}).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

Given the depressingly low rate due to the threshold barrier for the direct production of neutrons
through Eq.(\ref{G5}), von Weizs\"acker \cite{Weizsacker} suggested the exothermic reaction
\begin{equation}
\label{K}
p^+ + p^+ \rightarrow  d^+ + e^+  + \nu_e,
\end{equation}
with a gain of energy $\sim  0.4\ MeV$ from a transmutation of two protons. For this reaction,
we can estimate the energy gain/gm to be
\begin{equation}
\label{K1}
\frac{\Delta E_{gain}}{gm} \approx\   1.2 \times\ 10^{17} \left(\frac {erg}{gm}\right),
\end{equation}
a value quite close to that needed in Eq.(\ref{G3}) in order to keep the Sun warm.

The completion of the mechanism described through the above processes requires the reaction
rates for this ``$p^+p^+$'' channel of energy production. It was first computed by Bethe and
Critchfield\cite{Bethe} and it involves all three, EM, weak and strong interactions of the
standard model of particle physics.
At low relative kinetic energy between the two protons, we have a strong Coulomb repulsion inhibiting
the entire process Eq.(\ref{K}). This is a two step process: first we have  the essentially ``zero''
range weak Fermi process $p^+_1\to \tilde{n}+e^++\nu_e$ followed by the very short range
strong interaction process $p^+_2 + \tilde{n}\to d$, visualized in the Feynman diagram in
FIG. \ref{fig1} .
\begin{equation}
\label{K2}
p^+_1 + p^+_2 \to (\tilde{n} + e^+ + \bar{\nu}_e) + p^+_2 \to  d + e^+ + \bar{\nu}_e,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{n}$ is an intermediate ``virtual'' state neutron, which combines with the second proton
to fuse into a deuteron.

With an eye towards later usage for other processes, let us decompose the computation into (i) a repulsive
Coulomb Gamow suppression factor $B$ and (ii) a weak-strong cross section for a generic process
\begin{equation}
\label{K3}
N_1(Z_1) + N_2(Z_2) \rightarrow\ X,
\end{equation}
where $Z_{1,2}$ refer to the charge of the nuclei $N_{1,2}$ and $X$ refers to some specified final state.
The effective cross section reads
\begin{equation}
\label{K4}
\sigma_{effective} = B \sigma(N_1+N_2\to\ X),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{K5}
B = \frac{2\pi \gamma}{e^{2\pi\gamma} - 1}
\ \ \  {\rm and} \ \ \  \gamma = \frac{Z_1Z_2\alpha}{v/c}\ .
\end{equation}
In the above equation, $v =\ (\sqrt{2E/\mu})$ denotes the relative velocity, $\mu$ is the reduced mass,
$\alpha =e^2/\hbar c \approx\ 1/137\ $ is the fine structure constant and $E$ is the relative kinetic energy
when the two nuclei are far apart. The cross section $\sigma(N_1+N_2\to\ X)$ is in
principle computable from first principles of the known weak, EM  and strong interactions.
For low velocities, $\gamma>>1$ and hence $B$ is approximately
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{K6}
B \approx 2\pi \gamma e^{-2\pi \gamma} = \sqrt{\frac{E_g}{E}} e^{-\sqrt{E_g/E}}
\nonumber \\
E_g = (2\pi Z_1Z_2\alpha)^2 \mu c^2
\end{eqnarray}
Since, the reactions Eq.(\ref{K3}) of interest are exothermic for which the cross sections
$\sigma\propto 1/v$ for small $v$, it is convenient to write the effective cross section as
\begin{equation}
\label{K7}
\sigma_{effective}(N_1+N_2\to X;E) = \frac{S(E)}{E} e^{-\sqrt{E_g/E}},
\end{equation}
where $S(E)$ is a characteristic of the nuclear reaction under investigation.
Bethe-Critchfield\cite{Bethe} obtain for deuteron production through the PP chain Eq.(\ref{K})
\begin{equation}
\label{K8}
S(pp\to de^+\bar{\nu}_e) = 3.36 \times\ 10^{-25} MeV\  barn,
\end{equation}
which is exceedingly small in comparison to purely nuclear reactions, i.e, where $X$ does not contain
leptons and so no weak processes are involved. In fact, the reaction Eq.(\ref{K}) has never been
observed in any earth laboratory. By contrast, for non-leptonic initial and final states, one finds\cite{Fowler}
\begin{equation}
\label{K9}
S_{nuclear} \sim\ (1 KeV\  barn)\div\ (10 MeV\  barn).
\end{equation}
Typically ($1\ KeV\  barn$) results when the transition is radiative, i.e. whenever there is a photon
in the final state whereas for purely nuclear transitions we find numbers in the ($MeV\ barn$) range.

Let us pause to understand why the reaction Eq.(\ref{K8}) has a more than $10^{22}$ lower probability
to occur than a typical strong reaction Eq.(\ref{K9}). Since the former is a weak process with a cross
section proportional to $(G_FE)^2$, $G_F$ being the Fermi coupling constant and $E\sim MeV$, we expect
a suppression factor of about $10^{-16}$ with respect to the strong process. The extra suppression by
about $10^{-6}$ arises due to the reduced probability [$\sim (E/M)^2$, with $M$ the nucleon mass] for
a virtual neutron to combine with a proton to form a deuteron.

Of course, Eq.(\ref{K7}) is not the end of the story. It would if it were a {\em beam} experiment, that is
if the incident energy $E$ were fixed, But there is a Maxwellian velocity distribution which has to be
 integrated upon. Hence, Bethe and later Bahcall and others inserted it and the rate of nuclear reaction
 at a given temperature $T$ is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\label{K7-1}
\left[\frac{8}{\pi (k_B T)^3M}\right]^{1/2}  \int dE E \sigma_{eff}(E) e^{-E/(k_BT)} .
\end{equation}
This integration changes the final temperature or equivalently the mean energy dependence
considerably in the rate of the reaction. One further point regarding $S_{nuclear}$ needs be made.
Further variations can and do occur if there are resonances. This is discussed below.

For room temperature non-thermal induction of neutron production such as electron capture in a plasmon polariton
set up, there is no cross section only a capture rate. To calculate a cross section from a rate one
requires two beams so that one may define a cross section as a rate divided by a flux. In the context
of computing rates when the beams are in reality oscillating plasma oscillations, one is perhaps better
off simply quoting the rates of processes. In the Fermi theory of point interaction, the electron has
to be on top of the nucleus for the reaction to go. The method suggested\cite{WL} employs the  process
of radiation induced electron capture by protons or deuterons to produce ultra low momentum neutrons
and neutrinos. In the neighborhood of metallic hydride cathodes, protons or deuterons can do such
inverse beta decay conversions through the collective plasma modes of the charged particles. Hence,
its proper description is through Eq.(\ref{G6}) and not through a two body cross section since electrons
and protons or deuterons  oscillate back and forth at a frequency $\Omega$ and have a root mean square
lateral displacement
$\sqrt{<{\bf u}^2>}$ and when a renormalized invariant mass $m^*> \gamma_o m$ with $\gamma_o> 2.5$ is
reached for an initial electron, it can cause the Fermi inverse beta reaction. This is strikingly
different from a beam situation. Failure to do so and analyze this reaction using two body
cross section at a fixed velocity would lead to quite erroneous results.

\subsection{Production of $\alpha$ Particles via Four Protons \label{alpha}}

The deuterons produced from the PP reaction can in turn produce $^3{\rm He}$ and an $\alpha$:
\begin{equation}
\label{A1}
d + d \to\  ^4{\rm He} + \gamma
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{A2}
d + d \to\ n + ^3{\rm He}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{A3}
p + d \to\ ^3{\rm He} + \gamma
\end{equation}
As discussed in the Sec.\ref{Tokomak} barring selection rules, $S$ for reactions Eq.(\ref{A1})
and Eq.(\ref{A3}) should be $\sim KeV\  barn$, whereas for Eq.(\ref{A2}) it should be
$\sim MeV\  barn$. Also, as mentioned in Eq.(\ref{W1}),  the neutron in Eq.(\ref{A2}) has an energy
of $2.5\ MeV$ which has been measured in exploding wire experiments\cite{Stephanakis} as well as
in the Coulomb explosion experiments\cite{Zweiback}. Schwinger\cite{Schwinger} considered the
radiative reaction Eq.(\ref{A3}) and observed that at low energies, if one includes just
the $S$-wave, the dipole radiation would not contribute because of the positive intrinsic parities
of the $p$, $d$ and $^3He$ and negative parity of $\gamma$ and hence it should be highly suppressed.
The same argument should also apply to the radiative decay Eq.(\ref{A1}). On the other hand, all the
intrinsic parities are positive in Eq.(\ref{A2}) and hence this process can proceed via $S$-wave.
It is thus encouraging that both in exploding wire and Coulomb explosion experiments, reaction
Eq.(\ref{A2}) has been observed and to our knowledge reaction Eq.(\ref{A1}) not. It is suppressed
at the level of $10^{-7}$ in the vacuum.

Proceeding on with the PP chain, it has become customary in the astrophysics literature to invoke
the Bethe-von Weizs\"acker weak process twice and write it as a four initial proton process
\begin{equation}
\label{A4}
p + p + p + p \to\ ^4{\rm He} + e^+ + e^+ + \nu_e + \nu_e.
\end{equation}
Needless to say that there is no possibility to ever measure this reaction directly on earth.

On the other hand, for a partial verification of the PP chain in the Sun, the detection of neutrinos arising from the fast part of the
cycle was undertaken. As discussed in the next section, nuclei between helium and carbon are unstable. One such unstable process
which concerns bound and free electron capture from a $^7\rm{Be}$ nucleus leading to $^7\rm{Li}$ nucleus and emission of an electron
neutrino has been widely investigated\cite{Bahcall}. The electron capture reaction
\begin{equation}
\label{A5}
e^- + ^7{\rm Be} \to\ ^7{\rm Li} + \nu_e,
\end{equation}
half-life has been measured in the laboratory\cite{Selove}
\begin{equation}
\label{A6}
\tau[^7{\rm Be}(e^-,\nu_e)^7{\rm Li}] =\ (4.61 \pm\ 0.001) \times 10^6\ sec.,
\end{equation}
leading to a rate $(2.169\pm\ 0.005)\times 10^{-7}\  Hz$. This implies, that after $1\  sec.$, we
should find about $2.17\times 10^{14}\ ^7{\rm Li}$ atoms and the same number of neutrinos if we had
an initial supply of say $10^{22}$ $^7\rm{Be}$ atoms. Historically, the inverse electron capture
reaction
\begin{equation}
\label{A7}
^{37}{\rm Cl}(\nu_e, e^-) ^{37}{\rm Ar}
\end{equation}
was employed for the Solar neutrino detection on earth by Davis and others.

\subsection{CNO cycle and beyond \label{CNO}}
We mention the CNO cycle employed in massive stars simply to direct attention to the role of
resonances. Early workers \cite{Weizsacker1, Bethe1} had difficulty in bridging the gap between
$^4He$ and $^{12}C$ in the stars since the elements in this gap are unstable. Given the great
abundance of helium, the process of fusing 3 alpha particles was invoked
\begin{equation}
\label{C1}
^4{\rm He} +\ ^4{\rm He} +\ ^4{\rm He} \to \ ^{12}{\rm C} + \gamma.
\end{equation}
Since it requires the simultaneous presence of three particles in the initial state, the
probability should be extremely small except that this process is blessed with a double resonance. Salpeter\cite{Salpeter}
pointed the first resonance which is the unstable nucleus
$^8{\rm Be}$ with approximately the same mass as two alpha particles and  Hoyle\cite{Hoyle} noted
the second i.e.,  $^8{\rm Be}$ and $^4{\rm He}$ have the same mass as an excited state of
$^{12}{\rm C}$. Of course, the reaction Eq.(\ref{C1}) can not be observed in the laboratory,
but the resonances can and have been observed.

Bethe first emphasized the great importance of the above process which should be the main reaction producing stable Carbon,
active when the temperatures reach around $1.1\times\ 10^8\ Kelvin$. Carbon is of course considered crucial for the buildup of
elements. Around the same temperature, another capture of an alpha particle produces oxygen
\begin{equation}
\label{C2}
^{12}{\rm C} + ^4{\rm He} \to\ ^{16}{\rm O} + \gamma.
\end{equation}
We shall not follow the astrophysical consequences any further, except to remind the reader of the
intricate interplay between all the four interactions in producing various low energy reactions
leading to very different rates.

\section{Strong LENT \label{LENT}}
We now turn our attention to laboratory examples where strong interaction fusion reactions, such as
\begin{equation}
\label{S1}
d + d \to n +\ ^3{\rm He},
\end{equation}
have been directly observed through clean signals of threshold  $2.5\  MeV$ neutrons. As discussed
in the last section, the Coulomb barrier is quite large at low energies, see Eq.(\ref{K7}), and
thus it is well known that in the vacuum this process would have a vanishingly small probability.
In the core of the stars, when the temperature becomes  sufficiently high to overcome the barrier, the
process is supposed to occur. In reality, the results of such experiments do not yet have practical
importance. An alternative method  using fast electrical discharge through thin deuterated polymer
fibers has been very successful in causing fusion in many laboratories. This method is not directly
thermal but uses an electrical impulse to accelerate the deuterons enough to overcome the Coulomb
barrier. We shall discuss it in the next subsection using an example of a particular experiment.

\subsection{Deuterated wires and neutron production \label{Deuterated}}
Let us focus on the exploding wire experiment by Stephanakis {\it et al}\cite{Stephanakis}. Their experimental setup is
summarized below:
\medskip
\par\noindent
{\rm Fibers\ used: Polyethylene\ and\ Polypropylene}
\par\noindent
{\rm Density\ of\ deuterium} $>\ 10^{19}/cm^3$
\par\noindent
{\rm High\ power\ discharge} $\geq\ 10^{12}\ Watts$
\par\noindent
{\rm Typical\ discharge\ currents} $\sim  1.2\ Mega Amperes$
\par\noindent
{\rm  Peak\ Voltage} $\sim 600\ Kilo Volts$
\par\noindent
{\rm Duration\ of\ the\ discharges} $\sim\ 50\ nanoseconds$
\par\noindent
{\rm Length\ of\ the\ fibers} $\sim  3.5\ cm$
\par\noindent
{\rm Diameter\ of\ the\ fibers} $10\ to\ 190\ microns$
\par\noindent
{\rm Mean\ kinetic\ energy\ of\ the\ electrons}: ($1\ to\ 10)\ KeV$
\par\noindent
{\rm Mean\ electron\ speed} $v/c \approx\ (0.06\ to\  0.2)$
\medskip
\par\noindent
Through the equipartition theorem, it was deduced that when the plasma contained deuterium ions,
it had also a temperature equivalent to kinetic energies in the range $(1\div\ 10)\ KeV$, sufficient
to overcome the Coulomb barrier and cause fusion. Reading from the graph of their integrated yield
$Y$ of $2.5\  MeV$ neutrons, the yield seems to scale initially with the diameter $D$ according to
$Y\propto\ 1/D^2$ and then it seems to saturate for higher diameters.  The authors state, without
proof, that the variation in the yield  with fiber diameter can be understood on the basis of pressure
and energetics. Their integrated yield $Y\sim\ 10^{10}$ neutrons of $2.5\  MeV$ for thin deuterated
fibers of diameter $D\sim\ 20\ micron$. It is indeed a hefty rate giving ample proof that fusion had
occurred. But they were puzzled by an anomalously high production of neutrons by natural i.e., non
deuterated fibers as discussed below.

\subsection{High neutron rates from non deuterated exploding wires \label{Nondeuterated}}

While the production of $2.5\ MeV$ neutrons from deuterated fibers appeared to satisfy expectations
from the standard strong interaction branch Eq.(\ref{S1}), an apparent paradox  was generated when
yields from normal fibers were found to be considerably higher than that expected. The isotopic
abundance of deuterium in normal matter is about $1.5 \times\ 10^{-4}$. The fusion yield being
proportional to the square of the density of deuterium, the expectations were that natural fiber yield
should be about $5 \times\ 10^{-7}$ lower than the deuterated fiber yield, for the same fiber geometry.
But measurements proved otherwise. The normal yields are about $4$ to  $5$ orders of magnitude higher than
that expected. It is natural to conclude that some mechanism other than the strong interaction fusion is responsible
for this effect.

There are also other natural phenomena where neutrons have been observed in normal matter with virtually
nil deuteron contamination. Examples are lightning\cite{Shah} and thunderstorms\cite{Gurevich}. In both
cases, an anomalous production of neutrons has been reported.  For a normal fiber, if all we have are
electrons and protons then the only way to produce neutrons is via weak interactions

\subsection{Normal Fibers and Weak Interactions \label{Normal}}

We shall discuss at some length the dynamics of weak neutron production in a later section. Here we
shall just anticipate some results. As discussed earlier, for an electron-proton system, we are not
afflicted by the Coulomb barrier, as a matter of fact the process is helped by Coulomb attraction.
But to produce a neutron, about $0.78\ MeV$ needs to be put in the system to reach threshold for this reaction.
To thermally excite an electron to such an energy is not possible even at the core of most
stars. However, under special circumstances there are electromagnetic  means e.g., high electric and
magnetic fields\cite{Pramana}, or ``smart'' materials\cite{rocky} which can directly convert elastic
or other mechanical energy into EM signals, to supply such an energy.

For a thin fiber, it is useful to consider an initial state of  a large number of ($N+1$) interacting electrons
undergoing a weak process with a proton
 \begin{equation}
\label{S2}
W + (N + 1) e^{-} + p \to\ N e^{-} + n + \bar{\nu}_e.
\end{equation}
We shall see later that the importance of having a large number of ``spectator'' electrons, even
though only one is destroyed at a time, is due to the induction of a coherent Darwin
interaction\cite{Darwin}  between the electrons which leads to a high collective contribution to
the reaction energy thereby enhancing the nuclear activity. It produces a strong flux of neutrons
in normal fibers, lightning and in thunderstorms.

\section {Electric LENT \label{ELENT}}

In recent experiments, exploding molecular clusters of deuterium atoms have been produced. First,
a weak laser pulse hits the cluster internally ionizing the atoms within the cluster and it is
then followed by a strong laser pulse photo-ejecting a large number of electrons completely
out of molecular cluster. This leaves the cluster with a large positive charge ($Q=\ Ne$) in a
sphere of small radius $R$. Clusters with large $Q$ in a small $R$ explode. Ejected deuterons
from different clusters then collide with sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb
barrier and lead to observed fusion events. Such experiments have now been repeated in several
laboratories around the world and results bear out their theoretical analysis.

Let us estimate what magnitudes for the fields are required for a Coulomb explosion. Let $V$, $E$ and $P$ denote
respectively the voltage,
electric field and the stress on the system of charges.
 \begin{eqnarray}
\label{E1}
V = \frac{Q}{R} = \frac{Ne}{R}\ ,
\nonumber \\
E = \frac{Q}{R^2} = \frac{Ne}{R^2}\ ,
\nonumber \\
P = \frac{E^2}{8\pi} = \frac{N^2 e^2}{8 \pi R^4}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The {\it tensile strength} of a material $P_c$ is defined as the maximum allowed stress before the material disintegrates.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{E2}
E_c = \sqrt{8 \pi P_c},
\nonumber \\
for\ E<\ E_c,\ material \Rightarrow stable,
\nonumber \\
for\ E>\ E_c,\ material \Rightarrow unstable.
\end{eqnarray}
Typical explosion fields are of the order of
\begin{equation}
\label{E3}
E_c \sim\ 10^{11} Volts/m.
\end{equation}
We shall see later that similar fields would be required for inducing weak processes through surface plasmon polaritons on
metallic hydride surfaces.

We can deduce a hot disintegration temperature  $T_c$ for Coulomb explosion devices, using Eqs.(\ref{E1}-\ref{E2}):
\begin{equation}
\label{E4}
eV_c = k_B T_c \sim \left(\frac{R}{100 \mathring{A}}\right) KeV \ \ \ \ T_c \sim\ 10^7 K,
\end{equation}
of the order of the temperature near the core of the Sun.

\subsection{Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters \label{Coulomb}}

Through the collision between two deuterons from different clusters, Zweiback {\it et al} \cite{Zweiback} and
Buersgens {\it et al} \cite{Buersgens},
observed the production of neutrons via
the reaction Eq. (\ref{S1}):
\begin{equation}
\label{E5}
d + d \to\ ^3{\it He}(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV),
\end{equation}
the peak of their signal showing up at the expected characteristic neutron energy of $(2.45 \pm 0.2)\ MeV$.

The cluster size can be measured through light scattering. When the wave length $\lambda$ of the incident light in a Raleigh light scattering
experiment is large on the scale of the cluster radius $R$, then the elastic scattering amplitude is determined by the polarizability $\alpha$.
\begin{equation}
\label{E6}
F_{fi} (\omega) =\left (\frac{\omega}{c}\right)^2 \alpha(\omega) \epsilon^*_f \cdot \epsilon_i,
\end{equation}
so the elastic differential cross-section reads
\begin{equation}
\label{E7}
\left(\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{d\Omega}\right)_{i\to f} = |F_{fi} (\omega)|^2 =
\left (\frac{\omega}{c}\right)^4 |\alpha(\omega)|^2 |\epsilon^*_f \cdot \epsilon_i|^2
\end{equation}
and the integrated elastic cross-section reads
\begin{equation}
\label{E8}
\bar{\sigma}_{el} = \frac{8 \pi}{3}\left (\frac{\omega}{c}\right)^4 |\alpha(\omega)|^2
\end{equation}
The total cross-section is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{E9}
\sigma_{tot} = \frac{4 \pi c}{\omega} \Im m\  F_{ii} = \frac{4\pi \omega }{c}  {\Im}m\ \alpha (\omega)
\end{equation}
The radius $R$ of the clusters has been determined empirically via light scattering cross sections as a function of the temperature $T$ of the gas
jet producing the clusters. For a gas pressure of $55\ atmospheres$, as the temperature was increased from $85 K$ to $120 K$,  the measured
radii of the clusters decreased from about $55 \mathring{A}$ to about $12 \mathring{A}$.

The temperature $T$ of the gas jet producing the clusters also determines the absorption cross section for the light. Thus, the cluster radius can
be determined by the absorption of light. Such measurements have also been made. In addition, the yield as a function of the radius of the clusters
have been measured. The experimental results are consistent with theoretical computations described above.

\subsection{Coulomb breakup of molecules \label{Molecules}}
The success achieved with deuteron fusion led to a series of experiments using other molecular clusters\cite{Esry,Nitrogen} through which
detailed dynamical mechanisms for the explosions could be understood along with the structure of the molecules themselves. It has become an
imaging tool as well, see for instance\cite{Legare}

\section{Electro-Weak LENT\label{EWLENT}}
A detailed review of electro-weak interaction induced lent [EW LENT] can be found\cite{Pramana},
hence we shall be very brief here.
For systems containing only electrons and protons, as amply discussed in the preceding sections,
weak interactions between electrons and protons are essential in producing neutrons. Once there
is a supply of low energy neutrons, subsequent nuclear transmutations can occur at a high rate.
It is crucial for the production of initial neutrons from low energy $e^-p^+$ in a condensed matter environment,
 that an input energy $W \geq 0.78\ MeV$ be supplied somehow to overcome the threshold
barrier [see Eq.(\ref{G5})]. To accelerate the electrons thermally to MeV's in a condensed
matter system is impracticable and one is left to search for EM means for the needed level of
electron acceleration. There are essentially three options for electron acceleration which have
already produced good results
\par\noindent
1. {\bf Fast Lasers}: Very fast femtosecond   lasers can and have been employed successfully to create mono-energetic electron beams from
$100\ MeV$\cite{Nature1, Nature2, Nature3} up to $1\ GeV$\cite{Nature4} and table top electron accelerators have been constructed. While such
table top accelerators are extremely useful devices for all sorts of studies, they are not quite suitable for inducing electroweak LENT.
\par\noindent
2. {\bf Magnetic means}: As mentioned in the Introduction, an excellent example of EW LENT in nature is provided through the magnetic field
acceleration of electrons and protons via the betatron mechanism  in the Solar corona. We shall discuss it in the next section (\ref{corona}).
\par\noindent
3. {\bf Electric means}: A laboratory example is an electric field acceleration of electrons when piezoelectric rocks are crushed.
This would be discussed in Sec(\ref{Smart}) devoted to LENT induced by `smart' materials.

A very promising avenue for EW LENT yet not completely demonstrated in the laboratory is through plasmon polaritons on the surface
 of metallic hydrides. Under suitable conditions in particular, [$ecE/\Omega >\ \gamma_o (mc^2)$], where $E$ is the mean electric field,
 $\Omega$ is the resonant frequency, $m$ is the electron mass and $\gamma_o\sim 2.5$, weak production of neutrons can occur.
In fact, experimentally the Naples group has observed neutrons generated through plasma in a Mizuno type battery. The detection
of neutrons were made through nuclear CR-39 detectors and these results  are repeatable\cite{Cirillo2012}.
Same as above  also holds for piezo electrics.The difference is that the resonant frequency for metallic hydrides is in the infrared whereas
 acoustic frequencies are in the microwave range. Thus, considerably higher electric fields are needed for LENT to occur on metallic surfaces.

\section{Solar Corona \label{corona}}

\begin{figure}
\scalebox {0.6}{\includegraphics{gfig2}}
\caption{Shown schematically is a magnetic flux tube which
exits the solar photosphere (shaded region) and enters the
solar corona (clear region) through a sunspot on the chromosphere
boundary. The magnetic flux tube then exits the solar
corona and enters back into the photosphere through a second
sunspot on the chromosphere boundary. The walls of magnetic
flux tube are a vortex of circulating electric currents.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

Galileo first saw solar sunspots through his optical telescope and to this day the physical
origin of these dark sunspots is unclear. Early in the last century, Hale and others\cite{Hale1, Hale2}
discovered that magnetic flux tubes exit out of one sunspot to then dive into another sunspot. Such an
uninterrupted magnetic flux tube has a part of it submerged below the solar surface where the
electronic density is high and a part which is out in the solar corona where the density of electrons
is low. A schematic picture is shown in FIG. \ref{fig2}. Such a ``floating'' flux tube is held up
by the magnetic buoyancy\cite{Parker1}. There are oppositely directed vortex currents of electrons
and protons which loop around the outer magnetic flux tubes.

\subsection{Solar carpet \label{carpet}}

An intricate pattern of stable steady state magnetic flux tubes form a
``magnetic carpet'' and they store considerable magnetic energy. This collective
magnetic energy $W_{mag}$ can be estimated to be high enough to cause inverse
beta decay similar to that discussed previously
\begin{equation}
\label{s1}
W_{magnetic} + (N + 1) e^- + p \to  N e^- + n + \nu_e
\end{equation}
Let $\delta I$ denote a small change in the current going around the vortex circumference.
It would lead to a small change in the
magnetic field energy $\delta {\cal E}$
\begin{equation}
\label{s2}
\delta {\cal E} = \Phi\ \delta I.
\end{equation}
If $L$ denotes the length of the vortex circumference of the magnetic flux tube, then
the destruction of one electron through the weak reaction Eq.(\ref{s1}) implies
\begin{equation}
\label{s3}
\delta I = - \frac{e v}{L},
\end{equation}
with $v$ denoting the component of the relative velocity between an electron and a
proton which is tangential to the circumference.
Letting $\Phi =\ B \Delta S $ and $\delta {\cal E} = - W_{magnetic}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{s4}
W_{magnetic} = (ec B) \left[\frac{\Delta S}{L}\right] \left[\frac{v}{c}\right].
\end{equation}
For a cylindrical flux tube,
\begin{equation}
\label{s5}
\frac{\Delta S} {L} = \left[\frac{\pi R^2}{2 \pi R}\right] = \frac{R}{2}.
\end{equation}
yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{s6}
W_{magnetic} = 15\ GeV \times
\nonumber \\
\left[\frac{R}{Kilometer}\right]
\left[\frac{B}{KiloGauss}\right] \left[\frac{v}{c}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
Employing the estimates
\begin{equation}
\label{s7}
R \sim 100\ Km;\ B \sim\ 1\ KGauss;\ \frac{v}{c} \sim\ 10^{-2},
\end{equation}
we find
\begin{equation}
\label{s8}
W_{magnetic} \sim\ 15\ GeV
\end{equation}
that is quite large enough for an appreciable production of neutrons  from the protons.
These neutrons thereby give rise to further nuclear transmutations into higher mass nuclei
via neutron capture and subsequent beta decays.

\subsection{Betatron mechanism \label{Betatron}}

Let us discuss here a non-thermal acceleration process which leads to a generation of quite
energetic particles in the solar corona. As described in the last section, a mechanism is
required to induce nuclear reactions well outside the solar photosphere.

The central feature of our solar accelerator \cite{WSL}  centers around the Faraday's
law and is closely analogous to a betatron\cite{Kirst}. Conceptually, the betatron is a
step up transformer whose secondary coil is a toroidal ring of accelerating charged particles
circulating about a time varying magnetic flux tube. The solar magnetic flux tube acts
as a step up transformer mechanism in transferring particle kinetic energy outward from the
inner photosphere to circulating charged particles located in the corona outside.

Circulating  currents located deep in the photosphere can be viewed conceptually as a net
current $I_{primary}$ circulating around a primary coil. Circulating currents found high in
the corona can be viewed as a net current
$I_{secondary}$ circulating around a secondary coil. If $K_{primary}$ and $K_{secondary}$ represent,respectively,
the charged particle kinetic energies in the primary and secondary coils,
then one finds the step up transformer power equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{B1}
{\dot K}_{primary} = I_{primary} V_{primary}\nonumber\\
= {\dot K}_{secondary} = I_{secondary} V_{secondary}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{primary,secondary}$ represent the voltages across the primary, secondary coils
respectively. The total kinetic energy transfer
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{B2}
\Delta K_{primary} = \int I_{primary} V_{primary} (dt)\nonumber\\
 =  \Delta K_{secondary} = \int I_{secondary} V_{secondary} (dt),
\end{eqnarray}
The essence of the step up transformer mechanism is that the kinetic energy distributed among a
very large number of charged particles in the photosphere can be transferred via the magnetic
flux tube to a distributed kinetic energy shared among a distant much smaller number of charged
particles located in the corona, i.e. a small accelerating voltage in the primary coil produces
a large accelerating voltage in the secondary coil. The resulting transfer of kinetic energy is
collective from a large group of charged particles to a smaller group of charged particles. The
kinetic energy per charged particle of the dilute gas in the corona may then become much higher
than the kinetic energy per charged particle of the more dense fluid in the photosphere. In terms
of the connection between temperature and kinetic energy, the temperature of the dilute
gas in the corona will be much higher than the temperature of the more dense fluid photosphere.

It is clear that for the betatron, or equivalently the transformer mechanism, to be efficient in
sustaining large electrical fields, the coronal electrical conductivity must not be too large. For
an estimation of the conductivity, we need to know the density of the electrons in the corona.
Fortunately, we have a quite reliable experimental measurement  of the electronic
density through its effect on the gravitational bending of light in the radio wave band near the
Sun. Given its importance, we shall sketch the methodology of this measurement.

Bending of an EM beam near the Sun may be looked upon as a change in the refractive index, from
unity for the vacuum. For frequencies $\omega>>\ \omega_P$, where $\omega_P$ is the plasma frequency,
the effective refractive index
${\tilde n}({\bf r}, \omega)$ at a position ${\bf r}$, where the charged particle density is
$n({\bf r})$,  reads \cite{Weinberg, Muhleman}
\begin{equation}
\label{B3}
{\tilde n}({\bf r}, \omega) =
1 + \frac{2 G M_{Sun}}{c^2 |{\bf r}|} - \frac{2\pi n({\bf r})e^2}{m \omega ^2}.
\end{equation}
Successful measurements of the gravitational bending of electromagnetic waves with frequencies in
the visible and all the way down to the high end of the radio spectrum are legion. These experiments
provide a direct proof that any coronal conductivity disturbance on the expected gravitational bending
of electromagnetic waves for frequencies down to $12.5$ GigaHertz must be negligible. Deviations from
the general relativistic effect have allowed quite accurate measurements of the electronic density
in the Solar corona.

The estimates from even lower frequency radio wave probes used for gravitational bending \cite{Muhleman}
put the coronal conductivity in the megahertz range. For comparison, we note that the typical conductivity
of a good metal would be more than ten orders of magnitude higher\cite{Salt}. Hence, these data lead us to
conclude that the Solar corona is close to being an insulator and eons away from being a metal and there
are no impedimenta toward sustaining electrical fields within it \cite{Foukal, Feldman, Stasiewicz}. Thus,
our proposed transformer mechanism and its subsequent predictions for the corona remain intact.

\subsection{Solar flares and Solar explosions \label{flares}}

When sufficiently high kinetic energy is reached in the circulating currents around the flux tubes
floating in the corona, the flux tubes may explode violently into a solar flare. The loss of magnetic
energy during the flux tube explosion is rapidly converted into charged particle kinetic energy. The relativistic
high energy products of the explosion yield both nuclear and elementary particle
interactions. The extraordinary explosion which occurred on July 4, 2000 was strong enough to
have generated particles, for example an excess muon flux, some of which were observed experimentally
at the CERN L3 + C detector\cite{L3}. It offered a wonderful opportunity to infer that protons with an
average energy of $40\ GeV$ were produced in the Solar corona. Independently, the BAKSAN underground
muon measurement\cite{Baksan} provided experimental evidence for protons of energy in excess of
$500\ GeV$ in the Solar flare of September 29, 1989. We show below some estimates\cite{Pramana}.

For a large Solar flare exploding in a time ($\Delta t$), the break up of a magnetic tube would yield,
through the Faraday law, a mean acceleration voltage ${\bar V}$ around the walls given by
\begin{equation}
\label{So1}
{\bar V} = \frac{\Delta \Phi}{\Delta t}
\end{equation}
Inserting as before, $\Delta \Phi\ = B \Delta S$, where $B$ denotes the mean magnetic field before
the explosion and $\Delta S$ the inner cross-sectional area, we have for the mean acceleration energy
\begin{equation}
\label{So2}
e {\bar V} = ecB\ \frac{\Delta S}{\Lambda}\ \ \ {\rm where} \ \ \ \Lambda = c \Delta t .
\end{equation}
For a cylindrical geometry, we may again rewrite it in a useful form
\begin{equation}
\label{So3}
e {\bar V} \approx 30\ GeV\times \left[\frac{B}{KiloGauss}\right]
\left[\frac{\pi R^2}{\Lambda \times Kilometer}\right].
\end{equation}
For a coronal mass ejecting flux tube exploding in a time
$\Delta t\ =\ 10^2$ seconds, we use the estimated values to derive
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{So4}
B \approx\ 1\ KiloGauss;\nonumber\\
R \approx\ 10^4\ Kilometers\nonumber\\
\Lambda \approx\ 3 \times\ 10^7\ Kilometers\nonumber\\
e {\bar V} \approx\  300\ GeV
\end{eqnarray}
Physically, it corresponds to a colliding beam of electrons and protons with a beam
energy of $300\ GeV$. Experimental measurements by L3 and Baksan confirm the very high energy
acceleration of electrons and protons and our proposed mechanism is consistent with the data.
In \cite{Pramana} we have also made predictions for the flux of the positron from such flares.

Needless to say, that the measurements already made belie the notion that all nuclear reactions
in the Sun occur in the core of the Sun. Similar conclusions can be drawn for any star with a
high enough magnetic field.

\subsection{Fusors}

It is often overlooked that in a D-D or a D-T
system\cite{IEEE-D-3He} -driven by modest static electric fields-
inertial electrostatic confinement has been achieved leading to fusion. Such devices known as
 fusors have existed since the 1960's. The basic idea is to use a hollow transparent (perforated)
spherical cathode enclosed by a concentric spherical anode, and the device
filled with deuterium or deuterium and tritium at low pressure. Ionization of
the gas occurs via corona discharge. A potential
difference of around 80 KV in commercial devices  accelerates
deuterons radially, and despite collisional losses,
substantial number of collisions take place with energies over 15 KeV and fusion takes place
with the release of neutrons. Much lower voltages can be used.
In fact, the voltage threshold for D-T fusion (the lowest) is
very modest, comparable to that used
in many photocopiers, well below the 10 KV of old black and white
television sets or furnace ignition transformers, and also well below the
typical 15 KV for neon signs or the 25 KV used in old-style colour TV sets.
For D-D fusion, the threshold voltage is again quite modest around 20 KV,
and corresponds to an energy that can and indeed has been reached by pyroelectric devices
as discussed in section \ref{Pyro}.

We stress that this is not a speculative idea, but rather a mature technology,
and tabletop devices can be purchased commercially\cite{NSD-Fusion}
which produce ($10^6\div 10^{11}$) neutrons per second. Indeed,
a quick internet search will readily reveal that fusors are popular science
fair projects built by students.

\section{LENT in Smart Materials\label{Smart}}

Amongst a large class of ``smart'' or more appropriately, specifically designed materials with
special properties, pyro and piezo electric materials have been demonstrated both theoretically
as well as experimentally to lead to low energy nuclear reactions. A pyroelectric crystal develops
an electric field due to (adiabatic) changes in its temperature and its opposite, that is an
applied electric field causing an adiabatic heating or cooling of the system is called the
electrocaloric effect. In a piezo electric crystal, mechanical stress is directly converted to the
development of electric fields and vice versa. Under suitable conditions, sufficient electric fields [voltages] have
been generated in both cases to lead to neutron production. We shall discuss each
of them briefly.

\subsection{Pyroelectric LENT \label{Pyro}}

In \cite{Naranjo, Geuther}, it was experimentally shown that through two pyroelectric crystals when
heated or cooled produced nuclear $d d$ fusion evidenced by the observation of the characteristic
signal of $2.5\ MeV$ neutrons. The system was used to ionize the gas and accelerate the ions up
to $200\ KeV$. As we have seen in the previous sections, e.g.  Eq.(\ref{S1}), this acceleration is
much more than sufficient to cause $d d$ fusion. The measured yields are in good agreement with the
calculated yield.

The formal definition of a pyroelectric crystal is that within a single domain, the electric
induction $<{\bf D}_o> \ \neq 0$. When such a pyroelectric crystal is heated or cooled, it gets
spontaneously polarized under equilibrium conditions. The often quoted phenomenological expression
presumably valid in the linear regime gives the effective electric field $E_{eff}$ generated inside
a pyroelectric crystal due to a temperature change $\Delta T$
\begin{equation}
\label{P1}
E_{eff} = \phi (\Delta T),
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the pyroelectric coefficient. Pyroelectric crystals are modeled as parallel plate
capacitors with the accelerating voltage $V$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{P2}
V = \frac{Q}{C}\ ,\ \ \ \ Q = E_{eff} A, \ \ \ \ C = \frac{A \epsilon}{4 \pi t}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the area, $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant and $t$ the thickness of the crystal.
Hence, in this simple model, the energy imparted to an electron or an ion of charge $|e|$ reads
\begin{equation}
\label{P3}
|e| V = \frac{4 \pi e \phi t (\Delta T)}{\epsilon}
\end{equation}
If two crystals are used face to face, then the energy above is doubled.

For definiteness, we shall discuss briefly the experiment described in\cite{Geuther}, where lithium
tantalate [$LiTaO_3$] crystals were employed since they have a particularly large value for this
coefficient,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{P4}
\phi \approx 190\ \frac{\mu C}{m^2\ K} \approx 57\ \frac{Gauss}{K}
\nonumber\\
\phi \approx 1.71 \times 10^4\  \frac{Volts}{cm\ K}.
\end{eqnarray}
At atmospheric pressure, the change in polarization charge is quickly masked by the accumulation
of charges from the air. Hence, it is in the vacuum that we see the surface charge change and the
resulting electric field.

For, $t = 1\ cm$ and $\epsilon = 46$ for a two crystal set up\cite{Geuther}, the increase in
energy should be
\begin{equation}
\label{P5}
2 |e| V = 933\ KeV,
\end{equation}
whereas the maximum electron energy gain measured is only about $200\ KeV$. For ions, it is even
less.

The deuterium fill gas in a vacuum chamber  was ionized by the strong electric field between two
polarized crystals and the deuterons were accelerated into a deuterated polystyrene target at
energies above the threshold for fusion. To obtain the maximum accelerating voltage, two crystals
were employed to double the voltage and  a catwhisker tip was employed to increase the electric
field. The crystals were heated up to $130 ^o C$ and then cooled to room temperature. Very clear
signals for neutrons with energies $(2.5 \pm 0.1)\ MeV$ were observed by the usual time of flight
method.

\subsection{Piezoelectric LENT \label{Piezo}}

Over six decades, considerable experimental evidence has been gathered for high energy particle
production during the fracture of certain kinds of crystals
\cite{Karassey, Klyuev, Preparata, Nakayama, Lawn}.
Fracture induced nuclear transmutations and the production of neutrons have been clearly
observed\cite{Derjaguin, Lipson, Kaushik, Shioe, Cardone, Fuji}. The production of neutrons
appears greatly enhanced if the solids being fractured are piezoelectric materials. Common
examples of a piezoelctric are : hair, bone, quartz.

In a recent paper\cite{rocky}, we have theoretically analyzed the problem and shown the manner
in which the mechanical pressure in a piezoelectric stressed solid about to fracture can organize
the energy so that neutrons can be produced. Since some of the arguments may not be familiar to
many readers, we shall repeat below some of the relevant theory.

The energy per unit volume of a piezoelectric material may be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{p1}
du =  T ds + \sigma_{ij} dw_{ij} - {\bf P}{\cdot}  d{\bf E},
\end{equation}
where $s$ is the entropy per unit volume;  $\sigma_{ij}$ and $w_{ij}$ are the stress and strain
tensors, ${\bf P}$ and ${\bf E}$ are the polarization and electric field vectors. The adiabatic
piezoelectric tensor is defined as\cite{LL}
\begin{equation}
\label{p2}
\beta_{i, jk} =
\left(\frac{\partial P_i}{\partial w_{jk}}\right)_{s, {\bf E}}
= - \left(\frac{\partial \sigma_{jk}}{\partial E_i}\right)_{s, w}
\end{equation}
The effective mechanical electric field interaction energy density, up to quadratic order,
reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{p3}
\beta_{i, jk} = - \left(\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial E_i \partial w_{jk}}\right)
= - \left(\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial w_{jk} \partial E_i}\right),
\\
u = - \beta_{i, jk} E_i w_{jk},
\end{eqnarray}
leading to the piezoelectric Hamiltonain
\begin{equation}
\label{p4}
{\cal H}_{piezo} = - \int (d^3{\bf x}) \beta_{i, jk} E_i w_{jk}.
\end{equation}
Eq.(\ref{p4}) provides a direct link between a large strain (say a fracture caused by stress)
causing a large electric field. If one uses this interaction twice, then to second order in
$\beta$, the EM photon propagator would receive a contribution from the mechanical acoustic
phonon propagator in the following way.

Let $\chi_{ij}$ and ${\tilde \chi}_{ij}$ be the adiabatic electric susceptibilities at
constant strain and at constant stress respectively
\begin{equation}
\label{p5}
\chi_{ij} = \left(\frac{\partial P_i}{\partial E_j}\right)_{s,w},
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
{\tilde \chi}_{ij} = \left(\frac{\partial P_i}{\partial E_j}\right)_{s,\sigma}.
\end{equation}
These two are related through the elastic response tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{p6}
D_{ijkl} = \left(\frac{\partial w_{ij}}{\partial \sigma_{kl}}\right)_{s,{\bf E}} \ ,
\end{equation}
via the thermodynamic identity
\begin{equation}
\label{p7}
{\tilde \chi}_{ij} = \chi_{ij}  + \beta_{i,lm} D_{lm, nq} \beta_{j, nq}.
\end{equation}
The above static equations are easily generalized to dynamical frequency dependent
susceptibilities $\chi_{ij}(\omega)$ and ${\tilde \chi}_{ij}(\omega)$ and the phonon
propagator $D_{lm, nq} (\omega)$. Phonon modes described by the phonon propagator
affect the dynamical susceptibilities through the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{p8}
{\bf D} =  {\bf E} + 4 \pi {\bf P}
\\
\epsilon_{ij} (\omega) = \delta_{ij} + 4 \pi {\tilde \chi}_{ij}(\omega)
\\
{\tilde \chi}_{ij}(\omega) = \chi_{ij}(\omega)
+ \beta_{i,lm} D_{lm, nq}(\omega) \beta_{j, nq}.
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly then, the electric susceptibility of a piezoelectric material would be affected
by the frequencies associated with the mechanical acoustic frequencies occurring in
fractures of such materials. The velocity of sound $v_s$ compared to the
velocity of light $c$ obeys $v_s/c\approx\ 10^{-5}$ and hence for similar sized cavities
\begin{equation}
\label{p9}
\left(\frac{\omega_{phonon}}{\omega_{photon}}\right) \sim 10^{-5}
{\rm \ for\ similar\ sized\ cavities}.
\end{equation}
These phonon modes will then appear in $\epsilon(\omega)$.

The nuclear reactions are supposed to proceed through the weak capture of high electric
field accelerated electrons by protons as described in Section(\ref{EWLENT}). We need to
calculate the mean energy of the electrons in condensed matter when accelerated by an
electric field
\begin{equation}
\label{p10}
\frac{d {\bf p} }{dt} = e {\bf E},
\end{equation}
and the electron energy is estimated to be
\begin{equation}
\label{p11}
W = \sqrt{(mc^2)^2 + < |{\bf p}|^2> c^2}.
\end{equation}
If ${\cal P}_E(\omega) (d\omega)$ denotes the mean squared electric field strength in a
band width ($d\omega$), then Eqs.(\ref{p10},\ref{p11}) imply
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{p12}
E^2 = \int_o^\infty d\omega {\cal P}_E(\omega)
\\
< |{\bf p}|^2> = e^2 \int_o^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\omega^2} {\cal P}_E(\omega).
\end{eqnarray}
If $\Omega$ is a dominant frequency, then the above equation may be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{p13}
 < |{\bf p}|^2>  = \frac{e^2 E^2}{\Omega^2}.
\end{equation}
Let $m^*$ be the (electrically) renormalized mass. Then, in terms of the vacuum electron
mass $m$, we may write
\begin{equation}
\label{p14}
m^* = \gamma\ m\ \ \ {\rm where}
\ \ \gamma = \sqrt{1 + \left(\frac{e E}{mc \Omega}\right)^2}
\end{equation}
For electron capture to occur, $\gamma \geq \gamma_o \sim\ 2.5$. For a rough estimate of the
electric field, we may assume that most of the stress at a fracture is electric, in which case
\begin{equation}
\label{p15}
\sigma_{fracture} \sim \frac{E^2}{8 \pi}\ \ \ \Rightarrow
\ \ \ E \sim 10^5\ Gauss,
\end{equation}
where we have used Griffith's rule that
$\sigma_{fracture} \sim 10^{-3}\ \sigma_{bond}$, where $\sigma_{bond}$ is the stress
necessary to break all the chemical bonds. For a relevant frequency in the microwave
range $\Omega \sim 6 \times\ 10^{10}/sec$ we have $\gamma \sim 30$. We can convert this
into the neutron production rate through the Fermi interaction
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{p16}
\Gamma [{\tilde e} + p \to n + \nu_e]
\sim\ \left[\frac{G_F m^2}{\hbar c}\right]^2
\left[\frac{mc^2}{\hbar}\right] \gamma^2\\
\sim 0.6\ Hz\ {\rm for}\  \gamma = 30.
\end{eqnarray}
The transition rate per unit time per unit area of micro-crack surface may be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{p17}
\nu_2 = n_2 \Gamma [{\tilde e} + p \to\ n + \nu_e] ,
\end{equation}
where $n_2$ is the number of protons per unit area in the first few layers of the quartz granite.
Typical values are
\begin{equation}
\label{p18}
n_2 \sim \frac{10^{14}}{cm^2}\ \ \ \Rightarrow
\ \ \ \nu_2 \sim \frac{10^{15} Hz}{cm^2} \ ,
\end{equation}
a neutron production rate sufficiently large to be measured and to cause even other nuclear transformations.
Incidentally, in the piezoelectric case, the neutrons are not ultra cold.

\subsection{Novel uses for the Tokamak \label{Tokomak}}

Traditional ``hot fusion'' programs have been able to generate neutrons at total rate of about
$10^{17}/sec.$ in the ($dd$) and ($dt$) modes, unfortunately lasting only for about 2 seconds
\cite{Fusion1, Fusion2}. Thus, great improvements are still required for a steady state running
of the Tokamaks along with the curtailment of the generated radioactivity. As
emphasized by Byrne\cite{Byrne}, fusion reactors would require a ``biological shield'',
as their outermost shell made of some heavy element such as lead, whose purpose is to remove
the surviving $14\ MeV$ neutrons and to attenuate the $\gamma$ ray flux. But, this would generate
a substantial amount of undesirable radioactivity\cite{Steiner}. In fact, Byrne concludes that
``{\it It is not immediately obvious that the problems of radioactive waste disposal, which have
plagued fission power programmes across the world, will be entirely absent in the thermonuclear power
plants of the future.} ''

In view of the formidable scientific and technical problems with hot fusion programs yet to be
resolved, it is pertinent to ask whether Tokomaks, machines constructed at great public cost, may
be put to a different but important practical use. Given the extremely large electromagnetic fields
created with great ingenuity within these devices, we propose to use it as a Proof of Concept machine
for electro-weak LENT by running electrons and protons rather than just deuterons and tritons as has
been done so far. It may be difficult at the beginning to adapt a Tokomak for this purpose
but our proposal seems feasible.

\section{Conclusions and Future Prospects \label{Conclusion}}
The leitmotif of this paper has been to provide direct evidence that low energy nuclear
transmutations [LENT] can and have been induced by gravitational, weak, EM and strong
interactions both in Nature as well as in the laboratory. Also, that quite often three
or four of the fundamental interactions are needed to lead to the final LENT.
Due to this interplay of different interactions each with its own widely different coupling
strength, one finds a great diversity in the rates of the reactions.

Hence, we may conclude that the reality of LENT is no longer a matter of debate because
it is soundly based on the Standard Model.The focus must now  be on the employment of
technology to realize electroweak LENT and thereby provide sorely needed practical applications
of the Standard Model of particle physics. Extraordinary advances already made in realizing up to
$1\ GeV$ table top electron accelerators and high gain factors in generating electric fields in
surface plasmon polariton resonances on nano particles bode well for the future of electroweak LENT.

\section{Acknowledgements}

YS would like to thank his colleagues at the U. of Rome La Sapienza, Pisa, Perugia, Naples, Boston
and at CERN for inviting him for seminars on this and related topics. Special thanks are due in
particular to Professor N. Cabibbo, who during his last years greatly encouraged YS to pursue
ideas presented here and to, Dr. R. Chidambaram who has been an ever patient and sympathetic listener.

General Physics (physics.gen-ph); Nuclear Theory (nucl-th)