Dr. Stanislav Adamenko's cutting-edge research at Proton 21 delves into a novel form of nuclear fusion. By subjecting a copper electrode to a gigawatt energy pulse, he has discovered a millimeter-sized plasma formation within the electrode. This exploration of solid-state nuclear fusion and the creation of new elements through table-top nucleosynthesis has led to intriguing phenomena, including an enigmatic “black spot” that remains unexplained.

> Stanislav, could you provide some background on the Proton 21 Electrodynamics Laboratory? How did it come into existence, and what motivated you to pursue fusion research?

Crafting a succinct history of Proton 21 is challenging, as its roots trace back over fifty years. Initially, various seemingly unrelated events inspired the foundation of today’s research. Without these synchronicities, Proton 21 may not have emerged.

In 1958, I first encountered the concept of controlled thermonuclear synthesis (CTS), which captivated my imagination. I aspired to uncover a straightforward solution akin to the natural processes involved in synthesizing optimal structures, a quest that spanned many years.

By late 1979, while working on my dissertation regarding “Analytical Methods for The Synthesis of Multidimensional Dynamical Systems with Optimum Stability,” I grasped a pivotal realization: the synthesis of an optimal dynamical system and controlled nuclear synthesis share conceptual unity. Both processes entail forming dynamic structures with optimal inertia against external forces, termed “the general dominating perturbation.”

The role of this perturbation, particularly in explosive nucleosynthesis in stars, is effectively played by the gravity of a collapsing cosmic body. I posited that an analogous process might be achievable on Earth, acting as a catalyst for nuclear synthesis while generating a mass defect.

During this time, a group of scientists initiated the “Kyiv Laboratory of Electrodynamic Studies,” which later evolved into Proton 21. Their research encompassed a range of topics, including non-equilibrium processes, thermodynamics, and nuclear synthesis.

In 1996, a new initiative emerged from experts in Kyiv and Kharkiv focused on CTS and innovative energy production methods. By 1998, we secured funding for the “Luch” project, which was successful, leading to the establishment of the “Laboratory of Electrodynamics Studies” under my leadership.

> Your research has prominently featured pulsed plasma experiments, where a copper electrode seemingly explodes due to high-energy discharges, suggesting a fusion reaction within the electrode. Could you elaborate on this?

In May 1999, we embarked on an ambitious nine-month project to construct an electron accelerator to drive CTS, aiming to surpass the Lawson criterion in a metallic target using magnetic confinement from a self-focusing electron beam.

After three months of unsuccessful attempts, I realized our initial approach was unfeasible. This led to a breakthrough: utilizing the same beam as a material carrier of the mass force, which could trigger a collapsing soliton-like wave in the target's surface layer.

This process would initiate a cascade of self-organizing nonlinear physical phenomena, culminating in a collapse linked to a concentrated region of substance and energy at the target's core.

The day we first attempted shock compression on our target material marked a significant milestone. Our experiments were promptly successful. Less than a year into our project “Luch,” we recorded an event that represents a key moment in Proton 21's history:

On February 24, 2000, at 6:05 p.m., a micro-supernova with a mass of 1 mg erupted, lasting for 300 ns (30 ns in the X-ray range). The target, a 0.5 mm diameter metallic cylinder, exploded from within.

The remnants took on a conical crater shape, indicating that we had achieved maximum energy density along the target's axis.

Follow-up X-ray analyses revealed that the focal area within the target resembled a teardrop, measuring less than 10^-2 cm in diameter and extending over two outer diameters. The effective temperature at this focal point averaged 35 keV, corresponding to approximately 3.5·10^8 K, mirroring the temperatures found in thermonuclear processes within white dwarf stars.

In the days following our initial successful experiment, we consistently achieved a 100% repetition rate for axial explosions across various materials.

Over several months, we determined that up to 20% of the mass in the target underwent nuclear transmutation into elements not present in the original sample, confirmed through X-ray spectrum microanalysis and mass spectrometry.

Surprisingly, the radiation levels from these explosive reactions remained within background values, contradicting our initial expectations. This outcome suggested our model of self-organizing nuclear structure synthesis via coherent shock action did not produce unstable atomic nuclei.

After conducting hundreds of analyses of our target samples post-experiment, we found that the statistical distribution of the created chemical elements closely resembled those found in the Earth's crust, albeit with a higher concentration of heavy elements, especially lead (Pb). This aligns with the enhanced stability of the double-magic nucleus 208Pb.

Our findings also revealed an interesting correlation between the integral mass defect of the identifiable nuclear transformation products (ranging from 150 kJ to 10 MJ) and the kinetic energy of target explosion products (between 500 J and 10 kJ, depending on specific experimental conditions).

Understanding the significance of these values requires acknowledging the extraordinary energetic potential observed during our experiments. Remarkably, we may have discovered a new natural mechanism for nuclear combustion.

> The electrodes used in your experiments were 99.999% pure copper, yet analyses revealed isotopic impurities in unusual ratios, supporting the notion of actual fusion. Can you comment on the elements created during these high-energy pulsed discharge experiments?

When evaluating the influence of impurities on the composition of nuclear transformation products, we noted an absence of significant correlation between impurity concentrations and the abundance of identified chemical elements. This finding is unsurprising, given that the mass of impurities in 1–3 mg of a Cu target subjected to high-energy action is minimal compared to the mass of the explosion products, which can exceed 10^20 a.m.u. in some experiments.

Our data suggests that enhancing the chemical purity of targets enriches the element composition of products from micronuclear explosions. Notably, regardless of target composition, elements such as C, O, Na, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, Ca, Ti, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ag, Sn, Ba, La, Ce, W, Ta, and Pb consistently dominate the relative abundance of atoms in our artificial nucleosynthesis products.

> Considering the anomalous production of elements in your experiments, do you think stellar processes might not create matter through traditional models, but instead through mechanisms similar to your “self-consistent collapse”?

We have gathered samples and measurements from tens of thousands of successful laboratory experiments and conducted over 30,000 analyses using various methods to ascertain the compositions of the explosion products. However, we lack the expansive laboratory facilities necessary for extensive comparative studies, including astrophysical ones, so definitive conclusions remain elusive.

Nonetheless, I remain cautiously optimistic that our laboratory findings may reflect similar processes that generate matter in cosmic events. For instance, the correlation coefficient between the emission spectra from our exploded targets and those from supernovas, quasars, pulsars, and gamma-bursts in the energy range of 10 keV to 10 MeV is impressively high, ranging from 0.92 to 0.99.

For longer-lived stars like our sun, their composition is widely accepted as a result of classical nuclear reactions described by traditional models. However, it’s conceivable that solar fusion may also involve a process akin to the “induced decay of superheavy nuclei.”

In the induced-decay scenario, decay products from superheavy nuclei yield stable isotope nuclei such as He, C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ca, and Fe. These isotopes exhibit high internal stability, enhancing their likelihood of persisting as semi-discrete structures within the larger nucleonic framework of superheavy nuclei.

For superheavy nuclei with mass numbers between 10^3 and 10^6 a.m.u, two decay scenarios may unfold:

1. Superheavy nuclei at the lower mass boundary could decay due to internal excitation from low-energy external actions.
2. Larger nuclei (up to 10^6 a.m.u) might experience a continuous growth-decay cycle, absorbing lighter nuclei from the environment and subsequently “boiling” out new light nuclei, akin to cluster radioactivity.

This “evaporative self-cooling” process results in a mass loss as clusters evaporate, contrasting with the mass gained from lighter nuclei absorption. This growth and decay cycle operates until a potential well is reached, where minimum specific energy per nucleon is attained.

Specific binding energy per nucleon can range from 2 to 5 MeV for smaller superheavy nuclei up to 35 to 40 MeV for larger ones, with efficiency estimates between 3 to 6 MeV/nucleon in the first scenario and 20 to 30 MeV/nucleon in the second, as predicted by academician A. Migdal.

These insights present exciting prospects for nuclear power generation, with net energy yields potentially 3 to 6 times greater than those of the most efficient classical thermonuclear reactions.

> Considering your fusion research's energy implications, what are your thoughts on recent findings from the Sandia “Z machine”? They noted a plasma temperature increase from 2 million to 3.6 billion degrees Kelvin, and signs of net energy output exceeding calculated input. Do you think they are observing a similar “self-consistent collapse”?

Unfortunately, I'm not well-acquainted with the specifics of the Sandia Labs Z machine, particularly regarding artificially initiated nuclear collapse. However, in broad terms, I don't currently perceive another way to instigate exoergic nuclear reactions in substantial terrestrial materials aside from the driver-initiated nuclear collapse I've described.

The conditions for generating such reactions in our lab involve exciting a collapsing wave-shell in neutral plasma, where particle density and energy reach a state conducive to coherent nuclear reactions.

Thus, if Sandia's researchers utilized standard metals as nuclear fuel and recorded a positive energy yield, it could imply they inadvertently replicated a process we first publicly presented at a conference in Messina, Italy, in October 2002.

Should Sandia indeed have documented an energy yield that they do not attribute to zero-point energy, torsion fields, or other speculative sources, the mass defect or binding energy (either nuclear or chemical) remains a plausible explanation.

If chemical reactions can't account for the observed yield, the next step is to investigate the nucleosynthesis products revealing the mass defect and corresponding free energy.

> Does your research provide any hope for Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technologies?

This is a crucial question, and the answer is a resounding YES!!!

Our theoretical and experimental investigations not only offer hope for LENR but also clarify the physical mechanisms underlying LENR processes. Our work could enable LENR researchers to optimize these nuclear mechanisms for future commercial energy applications.

We believe that the collective and coherent effects of nuclear interactions in dense materials, like those we employ, can accurately describe LENR reaction mechanisms, shedding light on the many serendipitous LENR experiments that have revealed unexpected nuclear products or phenomena.

Traditional LENR experiments have a direct connection to our artificially initiated collapse. For instance, envisioning the self-collapse of a macroscopic bubble presents a scenario where disorganized microscopic gas bubbles generate minimal effects. Without coherent collapse, the overall impact is negligible compared to its true potential. Coherency fosters a cascading effect in nuclear reactions, akin to the difference between a pile of uranium and an atomic bomb.

In essence, we encounter physical processes characterized by a strong nonlinear dependence. For example, the relationship between excess energy released in an LENR reaction and the amount of active substance involved is something we've extensively studied.

This nonlinear dynamic elucidates why many well-known LENR experiments yield minimal energy production and nucleosynthesis, as well as why their results are challenging to replicate or accurately discern.

I am confident that within the next five to ten years, collective and coherent nuclear reactions will attract significant investment in nuclear energy research, leading to a large-scale shift towards environmentally friendly energy production based on natural nuclear transformations.

> Lastly, could you discuss the mysterious “black spots” found on the copper electrodes during analysis? They exhibit unusual properties. Could you elaborate on this?

Carl Sagan once stated, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and I've shared some video footage of this anomaly. We recorded this through the monitor of a “CAMECA IMS 4f” ionic microprobe, leading to several discoveries.

While investigating the nuclear transformation products of exploded metal targets via secondary-ion mass spectrometry, we identified “spots” on the surfaces of several 99.98% pure copper accumulating screens, where no secondary ion signals were detected.

Secondary ions typically dislodge from the screen's surface, especially following intense bombardment by primary ions. Yet, these spots, measuring around 50 to 100 µm in irregular shapes, exhibited an absence of detectable secondary ion flux.

By following standard procedures for interpreting ion microprobe images, we concluded that these anomalous black spots are composed of neither known chemical elements nor any undiscovered heavier elements (up to 480 a.m.u., the maximum range of our IMS 4f).

Our operators have observed anomalies for decades, and this was the first instance of such an effect. If these spots do not correspond to any known atom, what could they be?

We also noticed something even stranger: while bombarding the black spots with heavy ions in search of a secondary signal, we found not only a lack of secondary signals but also no reflection of primary ions from the microprobe beam! The primary ions seemed to vanish entirely.

Initially, I found this hard to believe, as primary ions reflect from any surface in considerable quantities, resulting in a continuous glow on the display screen. This background signal typically prompts the scope's automatic shut-off to prevent screen burn from primary ions.

As improbable as it may sound, the absence of reflected primary ions suggests that the ions directed at the black spots were somehow absorbed.

During subsequent attempts to elicit a signal from the spot, we gradually scanned the mass range of secondary ions accessible to the device, discovering a flickering spot near 433 a.m.u. within the black spot. This flicker diminished to zero brightness after several seconds.

Repeating this experiment revealed that the flickering intensity after pauses correlated with pause duration and exhibited exponential decay.

Further analyses of other black spots yielded similar patterns, with luminosity arising non-uniformly along the boundaries of the black spots.

> So, if I understand correctly, this anomaly appears to absorb ions used for measurement without producing a detectable signature for composition identification. Do you have a hypothesis regarding this anomaly?

Our findings lead us to a singular explanation for these peculiar effects. Consider the focal region of a collapse where substance density approaches the extreme conditions typical of a collapsing star.

At the transition from implosion to explosion in the collapsing shell, a highly ionized substance emerges, consisting of superheavy nuclei with specific binding energies per nucleon significantly lower than their maximum.

Academician A. Migdal demonstrated that the Coulomb barrier for such nuclei might be nearly entirely suppressed by a “nuclear condensate” of negatively charged mesons, which form in sufficient numbers to counterbalance the Coulomb field of nuclear protons.

I hypothesize that these nuclei can exoergically capture surrounding normal atom nuclei when those atoms reach a certain resonant temperature range. Subsequently, decay cycles for these new superheavy nuclei will occur via the normal induced-decay mechanisms previously described.

Repeated cycles of “absorption-boiling-evaporation” will increase both the mass of the superheavy nucleus and its specific binding energy, reaching maximum values exceeding 10^5 a.m.u. and 35 MeV while the surrounding substance undergoes nuclear transformation in the opposite direction.

The accumulation rate of products evaporating from the growing superheavy nuclei will relate to the surface area of the superheavy substance in contact with the environment, inversely correlating with the temperature difference from the optimal range needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

The intensity of the flux visible in the microprobe’s display is determined by the balance between fragment creation and dispersion rates of atoms by the primary beam, whose intensity and duration influence the medium's temperature, creation efficiency, and dispersion rate of the generated substance.

This offers a plausible explanation for the observed patterns of luminous localized fragments against the black spot's background. Depending on the rate of nuclear boiling products, the external pattern may appear as a nuclear glow or nanoexplosion.

> Lastly, how do you envision commercializing this research? You mentioned a potential 10x return on energy input, but the setup time for each pulse poses a challenge, correct?

The technical parameters necessary for commercializing our nuclear combustion technology will largely depend on the intended application—whether for synthesizing superheavy nuclei, managing radioactive waste, or producing energy.

In the case of energy production, aside from the technical challenges associated with pulse repetition, optimizing parameters related to the initiating beam and the micro-targets used as fuel is vital. However, our theoretical models of self-sustaining collapse developed over the past five years were designed with this aim, making it a feasible endeavor.

Currently, the minimum time required to prepare a pulse is approximately 20 minutes, dictated primarily by our vacuum pump capacity, target change time, and capacitor charge time.

Nonetheless, adjusting our apparatus to achieve a pulse every few seconds is relatively straightforward. Should we wish to increase pulse frequency to tens or hundreds of hertz, this would entail more significant technical hurdles, though still manageable.