controlled nucleosynthesis

8/18/2019 Controlled Nucleosynthesis

1/784


2/784

Controlled Nucleosynthesis


3/784

Fundamental Theories of Physics

An International Book Series on The Fundamental Theories of Physics:

Their Clarification, Development and Application

Editor:

ALWYN VAN DER MERWE, University of Denver, U.S.A.

Editorial Advisory Board:

GIANCARLO GHIRARDI, University of Trieste, ItalyLAWRENCE P. HORWITZ, Tel-Aviv University, Israel BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON, University of Cambridge, U.K.CLIVE KILMISTER, University of London, U.K.PEKKA J. LAHTI, University of Turku, Finland FRANCO SELLERI, Università di Bari, ItalyTONY SUDBERY, University of York, U.K.HANS-JÜRGEN TREDER, Zentralinstitut für Astrophysik der Akademie der

Wissenschaften, Germany

Volume 156


4/784

Controlled NucleosynthesisBreakthroughs in Experiment and Theory

Electrodynamics Laboratory “Proton-21”

Kiev, Ukraine

Franco Selleri

Università di Bari

Bari, Italy

Alwyn van der Merwe

University of Denver

Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.

Stanislav Adamenko

Edited by


5/784

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Published by Springer,

P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

© 2007 Springer

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording

or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception

of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered

and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

ISBN 978-1-4020-5873-8 (HB)ISBN 978-1-4020-5874-5 (e-book)


6/784

Contents

Introduction xiii

I Approach to the Problem 1

1 Prehistory 3

S. V. Adamenko

2 Self-Organizing Nucleosynthesis in Superdense Plasma 19

S. V. Adamenko

2.1. Synthesis Process as an Instrument for Changing the Inertiaof the Interactive Particles Ensemble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2. Main Hypotheses to the Conception of Optimal Conditions

for Nuclear Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.3. About the Possible Scenario of the Self-Organizing Nucleo-

synthesis in the Collapsing Wave of Nuclear Combustion . . . 35

2.4. On the Technical Implementation, Choice of DriverConstruction for Shock Compression, and ExperimentalTesting of the Effectiveness of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3 Experimental Setup 53

E. V. Bulyak and A. S. Adamenko

3.1. Generator Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.2. Numerical Model of the Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.3. Construction of the “Pulse Generator—Vacuum Diode”System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.4. Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

II Some Experimental Results 65

4 Optical Emission of a Hot Dot (HD) 67V. F. Prokopenko, A. I. Gulyas, and I. V. Skikevich

4.1. Measuring Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

v


7/784

vi Contents

4.2. Results of Measurements and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5 Measurements of X-ray Emission of HD 89V. F. Prokopenko, V. A. Stratienko, A. I. Gulyas, I. V. Skikevich,

and B. K. Pryadkin

5.1. Procedure of Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.2. Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.3. Comparison of the Spectrum of HD with Thoseof Compact Astrophysical Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

6 Registration of Fast Particles from the Target Explosion 105

A. A. Gurin and A. S. Adamenko

6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

6.2. Characteristics of the Corpuscular Emission of an HD . . . . 111

6.3. Procedure of Track Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

6.4. Registration of the Image of HD on Track Detectorsin an Ionic Obscure-Chamber and a Magnetic Analyzer . . . 124

6.5. Measurements of Tracks with a Thomson MassSpectrometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

6.6. Observation of Nuclear Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

6.7. Discussion of the Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 147

7 Experiments on the Neutralization of Radioactivity 153

A. S. Adamenko

8 Isotope and Element Compositions of TargetExplosion Products 161

S. S. Ponomarev, S. V. Adamenko, Yu. V. Sytenko,

and A. S. Adamenko

8.1. Isotope Composition of Explosion Products . . . . . . . . . . 163

8.1.1 Isotope Composition of the Residual Atmosphereof the Vacuum Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

8.1.2 Isotope Composition of Target Explosion Products . . 172

8.2. Element Composition of Explosion Products . . . . . . . . . . 214

8.2.1 Element Composition of Explosion Productsby Physical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215


8/784

Contents vii

8.2.2 Element Composition of Explosion Productsby Chemical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

8.3. Main Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

III Synthesis of Superheavy Elementsin the Explosive Experiments 263

9 On the Detection of Superheavy Elements in TargetExplosion Products 265

S. S. Ponomarev, S. V. Adamenko, Yu. V. Sytenko,and A. S. Adamenko

9.1. Discovery of X-Ray and Auger-Radiation Peaksfrom the Composition of Explosion Products . . . . . . . . . 265

9.1.1 Auger-Electron Spectroscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

9.1.2 Methods of X-Ray Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . 281

9.2. Other Experimental Evidences for the Presence

of Super-heavy Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3109.2.1 Centralized Track Clusters with AnisotropicDistribution of Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

9.2.2 Instability of Unidentifiable X-Ray and Auger-Peaksunder the Action of an Electron Probe . . . . . . . . . 312

9.2.3 Initialization of High-Energy Nuclear ParticleEmission by Low-Energy Beam Irradiation . . . . . . 313

9.2.4 Nonfulfillment of the Energy Balance in the Running

Nuclear Transformations from the Compositionof Nucleosynthesis Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

9.2.5 Divergence of the Amount of a Target Matterwith its Observed Amount on the AccumulatingScreens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

9.2.6 Anomalies in the Isotope Composition of the Materialof Accumulating Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

9.2.7 Qualitative Differences of the Observed Compositionsof a Plasma Bunch and Nucleosynthesis ProductsDeposited on Accumulating Screens . . . . . . . . . . 320

9.2.8 Layers of Anomalous Enrichmentsin the Accumulating Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

9.2.9 Observation of Unidentifiable Mass-Peaksabove 220 amu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338


9/784

viii Contents

9.3. Study of the Composition of Target Explosion Productsby Independent Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

9.3.1 Comments to the Official Conclusion of the Concern

“Luch”, Russia, Regarding the Objects given by ourLaboratory for their Study with a Mass-Spectrometer“Finnigan” Mat-262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

9.3.2 Comments to the Official Conclusion of United MetalsLLC, USA, Report Sims-030623 . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

9.4. Main Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

10 Physical Model and Discovery of Superheavy

Transuranium Elements Producedin the Process of Controlled Collapse 363

10.1. Synthesis of Superheavy Nuclei and Conditionsfor their Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363S. V. Adamenko, V. I. Vysotskii, and A. S. Adamenko

10.2. Registration of Stable Transuranium Isotopeswith Standard Mass-Spectrometry Procedures . . . . . . . . . 365

S. V. Adamenko, V. I. Vysotskii, M. I. Gorodyskii,

and A. S. Adamenko

10.3. Identification of X-Ray and Auger Peaksof Superheavy Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372V. I. Vysotskii and S. S. Ponomarev

10.4. Registration of Superheavy Elements by Rutherford

Backscattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376S. V. Adamenko, A. A. Shvedov, and A. S. Adamenko

10.4.1 Characteristics of Superheavy Nuclei by RutherfordBackscattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

10.4.2 Analysis of Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

10.5. Induced Decay of Superheavy Nuclei with the Helpof a Beam of Oxygen Ions and Upon the Action of Laser

Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko, and V. I. Vysotskii

10.6. Induced Decay of Superheavy Nuclei with the Helpof a Beam of Cu Ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393S. V. Adamenko, A. A. Shvedov, and A. S. Adamenko


10/784

Contents ix

10.7. Anomalies of the Spatial Distribution of ExtrinsicElements in the Accumulating Screen and the Synthesisof Superheavy Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

S. V. Adamenko and V. I. Vysotskii

10.8. Substantiation and Discussion of Synthesisand Registration of Superheavy Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404S. V. Adamenko, V. I. Vysotskii, and A. S. Adamenko

IV Preliminary Résumé of Obtained Results,Theories, and Physical Models 413

11 Stability of Electron-Nucleus form of Matterand Methods of Controlled Collapse 415S. V. Adamenko and V. I. Vysotskii

11.1. Controlled Electron-Nucleus Collapse of Matterand Synthesis of Superheavy Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

11.1.1 General Problems of Synthesis of SuperheavyNuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

11.1.2 Problems and Prospects of the Creationof Superheavy Nuclei from Heavy ParticlesCollisions and with the Help of Pion Condensations . 418

11.1.3 Mechanism and Threshold Conditions for HeavyNuclei Formation in Degenerate Electron Plasma . . . 426

11.1.4 Synthesis of Superheavy Nuclei and Formationof a Nuclear Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

11.1.5 Mechanism of the Nucleosynthesis of Superheavyand Neutron-Deficient Nuclei upon the SequentialAction of the Gravitational and Coulomb Collapsesin Astrophysical Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

11.1.6 Basic Reactions in the Collapse of the Electron-Nucleus System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

11.2. Evolution of Self-Controlled Electron-NucleusCollapse in Condensed Targets and a Modelof Scanning Nucleosynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

11.2.1 Stability of Matter and the Problem of Collapseunder Laboratory Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

11.2.2 Interaction of the Bounded System of a DegenerateElectron Gas with a Multiply Ionized Target . . . . . 491


11/784

x Contents

11.2.3 Evolution of a Degenerate Fermi-Gas of Electronsin Condensed Targets in the Presence of a DriftMotion of Electrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495

11.2.4 Formation and the Motion of a Scanning SphericalLayer of a Degenerate Electron Gasin a Condensed Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506

11.2.5 Motion of the Ion (Nuclear) Component of a Targetin a Scanning Spherical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

11.2.6 Regularities of the Scanning Synthesisand Peculiarities of the Products of a Collapse . . . . 520

12 Nuclear Combustion and Collective Nucleosynthesis 543S. V. Adamenko, V. E. Novikov, I. N. Shapoval,

and A. V. Paschenko

12.1. Introduction: Collective Processes of Nucleosynthesis . . . . . 543

12.1.1 Key Problems of Inertial Nuclear Synthesis . . . . . . 549

12.1.2 Extreme States in Metals: ExperimentalResults and Limits of Theoretical Models . . . . . . . 562

12.1.3 Main Parameters, the Equation of States,

and Phase Transitions of a Matter with ExtremeParameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

12.1.4 Electron and Pion Condensations in Nuclei:Anomalous Nuclei and Other Exotic Nuclear States . 589

12.1.5 Nonequilibrium Thermodynamic Relationsfor Many-Particle Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597

12.1.6 Nucleosynthesis in Nature and in a Laboratory:Idea of the Processes of Nuclear Combustionof a Substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600

12.1.7 Conclusions of the Analytic Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 602

12.2. The Theory of Energy Concentration on Nuclear Scales . . . 605

12.2.1 Model of a Relativistic Diode with Plasma Electrodes 606

12.2.2 A Hydrodynamic Theory of Electron Beamsand an Anodic Plasma in a Diode . . . . . . . . . . . 611

12.2.3 Characteristic Features of the Operation

of a Relativistic Pulse Diode with PlasmaElectrodes and the Excitation of Nonlinear Wavesin a Condensed Medium in the One-FluidApproximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617

12.2.4 Instabilities of the One-Fluid Flow and the Excitationof a Two-Fluid Flow of the Electron-NucleusPlasma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641


12/784

Contents xi

12.2.5 Two-Fluid Mode upon the Action of a Pulse ElectronBeam on a Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

12.2.6 Structures in the Electron-Nucleus Plasma

and a Mechanism of the Energy Transportationonto the Nuclear Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655

12.3. Binding Energy of Nuclear Systems and NonequilibriumThe r modynami c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66212.3.1 Kinetic and Hydrodynamic Equations

for the Nuclear Matter: NonequilibriumStationary States of Nuclear Particles . . . . . . . . . 666

12.3.2 Influence of Dynamical Polarization on Pycnonuclear

Reactions and the Growth of Clusters . . . . . . . . . 67512.3.3 Binding Energy of Nuclear Structures:

A Generalization of the Weizsäcker Formula . . . . . . 69412.3.4 Active Phase of the Evolution of a Nuclear

Cluster in the Form of a System of Shellsand the Peculiarities of its Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . 709

12.4. Scenario of the Development of a Self-OrganizingNucleosynthesis in the Estimates by the Physical Models

Presented in this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71912.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735

Epilogue 751

References 753


13/784

INTRODUCTION

This collection of papers presents the main results of a logical analysis of extensive theoretical and experimental searches for efficient ways to over-come two long-standing scientific and technical problems: (1) the creationof a driver of inertial thermonuclear synthesis with a positive gain of energyand (2) the neutralization of artificially created radioactive materials accu-mulated as a product of the human activity.

The collection reports the main achievements of theoretical and

experimental studies performed by a group of experts in a number of relevantareas: the synthesis of stable dynamical structures of different physical na-tures; focusing and self-focusing of electron and plasma beams; concentrationand self-concentration of energy in material media and physical structureson different scales; and the study of both the nuclear combustion mecha-nism of substances under laboratory conditions and the chemical elementsproduced by such a combustion.

The investigations were carried out in a framework provided by a

privately financed program “Luch” designed to solve the problem of findingan efficient and safe technology for pulse initiation of controlled nuclearcombustion at the Electrodynamics Laboratory “Proton-21” (Kiev, Ukraine)during 2000–2004.

The papers of this collection are written by the immediate authors of new ideas and constructions, designers of methods, and executors of phys-ical experiments and measurements. These professionals had the good luckto solve the problem of initiating the controlled nuclear combustion of sub-

stances without an accompanying creation of radioactive “ashes.” By takingtheir clues from the processes occurring in exploding stars, they discov-ered and, in first approximation, investigated a great number of physicalprocesses and phenomena which were not predicted in most cases, beingdeemed improbable, or were born only in the minds of romantic visionaries.

Most of the artificially initiated and first-studied processes and phe-nomena (the full-scale laboratory nucleosynthesis of stable light, medium,heavy, and superheavy nuclei and atoms; the neutralization of radioactiv-

ity in the process of pycnonuclear combustion under conditions of the self-development of an artificially initiated collapse of substance; the low-energyinduction of the decay of the unknown stable superheavy nuclear struc-tures [which are, possibly, nuclei] surrounded by “classical” earth-relatedsubstances), including those which have been reproduced hundreds or thou-sands of times in our Laboratory for five recent years, remain unperceived

xiii


14/784

xiv Introduction

and frequently rejected, in principle, by many members of the physical com-munity. Such a state of affairs has many objective reasons and explanations.

Among them are: the fact that both our derived results and their

variety seemed inexplicable at first glance; the apparent conflict of the anno-unced results with tradiational ideas on the possible conditions and mecha-nisms governing nuclear reactions; the existing absence of official reproduc-tion of our main results by other groups and laboratories, which shortcomingis due to the incompleteness of patenting procedures and the commercialcharacter of the project, which factors often bedevil this sphere of activity;and the absence of a commonly known and accepted physical theory, fromthe perspective of which one can explain the totality of data reported by the

Proton-21 group.However, the main reason for the distrust and rejection of our re-

sults, which is really unexpected in many respects and sensational in a cer-tain sense (first of all, from the viewpoint of the potentialities they openup for an explosive stage of development in our technological civilization in harmony with terrestrial and cosmic realities), is a deficit of detailedand systematically presented information on: the underlying ideas; schemesof performed physical experiments; procedures of investigations; measuring

tools; real totality of experimental data, which look fantastic but are quitereal; reproducibility of observed effects; and the great number of details andnuances composing the essence of any physical experiment and allowing theobjective estimation of its certainty.

The aim of the present work is to partially fill in the aforementionedgaps and to give general information on:

• the variational principles and conceptual models forming the basis of

the original (and, possibly, unique) means of the artificial initiation of the collapse of energy-concentrating targets;

• the organization of the first series of successful experiments concerningthe artificial initiation of a self-supporting pulse process of nuclearcombustion;

• the results of measurements and estimates of the parameters of anelectromagnetic driver that induces the coherent quasi-isentropic shockcompression of substances;

• the preliminary results of studying the dependence of the abundanceof the observed chemical elements, constituting the products of thenuclear regeneration of the initial substance of targets, on the mainnuclear-physical characteristics of the process;

• the peculiarities of the emission spectra of the “hot dot” of a collapsein the entire ranges of wavelengths of the electromagnetic emission and


15/784

Introduction xv

of masses and energies of the particles forming the shock front of anexplosive plasma bunch ejected by an exploding target;

• the theoretical foundations and the physical models of reproduciblyobserved unconventional phenomena.

We thank, in anticipation, all the readers who will make remarks onthe substance of the presented results, which are no doubt far from perfect,and especially those researchers who will verify our results with the use of procedures overlooked by us or with technical facilities inaccessible to us.We have little doubt that readers who acquaint themselves with the processdiscovered by us, which is fantastic and inexhaustible in its manifestations,

will be overwhelmed, as we have been, by its harmony, power, and perfection.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the research teamof the Electrodynamics Laboratory “Proton-21”, whose knowledge, talent,and diligence have led to the original results presented on the pages of thisbook. I especially acknowledge the key role of all the coauthors of this book

who actually organized and led certain research projects.I thank all the persons who have actively participated in the prepa-ration of the present volume and personally those whose contributionhave been indispensible: Yurii Syten’ko, Sergei Shestakov, Il’ya Pashchenko,Valerii Kovylyaev, Viktor Lazarev, and Dmitrii Biryukov, who have pro-vided authors with real data, along with analytic, reference, and illustrativematerial; Valerii Kukhtin and Maksim Kozub, for highly professional trans-lation of the extremely specific and unwieldy Russian texts; Mark Hugo for

his generous help and well-aimed editorial and professional remarks; LevMalinovsky, who successfully organized or participated in translations andoften was called upon to clarify or sharpen the interpretation of unfamiliarmaterial; Aleksei Pashchenko, who coordinated the preparation and cross-checking of coauthored writings and participated in the preliminary editingof numerous Russian versions.

My coauthors and I express our gratitude and respect to the inve-stors in our project, “Proton-21” shareholders, and “PrivatBank” owners

Gennadiy Bogolubov and Igor Kolomoysky, who manifested an outstandingmental outlook and foresight. Without the financial support of these individ-uals, the outcome of our scientific project would obviously have been gravelyimperiled. My friendly gratitude goes also to Igor Didenko, who entered ourproject in the final stage of book preparation.

My special thanks and deep gratitude are due to Yurii Kondrat’ev,whose friendly help, kind offers and good advice I really appreciate. I owe


16/784

xvi Introduction

a special debt of gratitude to Franco Selleri, my dear friend and scientificeditor. This book could not have seen the light without his generous supportand creative ideas. His unstinting support, skill, and discerning insights,

together with generous gifts of enthusiasm, advice, and time have made thisproject possible. I finally thank Alwyn van der Merwe for his careful, patient,and cheerful proofing and shaping of the contents of this volume. Withouthis painstaking intervention, the completion of our manuscript would havebeen impossible. I am sincerely grateful for his extremely valuable commentsand suggestions.

The camera-ready form of this book we owe to the meticulous laborof Ms. Jackie Gratrix. The superb job she has done is herewith gratefully

acknowledged.

Stanislav V. Adamenko


17/784

Part I

Approach to the Problem


18/784

1

PREHISTORY

S. V. Adamenko

With deep gratitude to my father.

At the beginning of 2003, Professor Yurii Kondrat’ev got to know the resultsderived at the Electrodynamics Laboratory “Proton-21” and then gave anaccount of his impressions to Professor Franco Selleri. In autumn of thatyear, when Selleri visited the NASU Institute of Mathematics in Kiev atthe invitation of Kondrat’ev to give a lecture, he also was our guest forseveral days. I had the pleasure to show him the laboratory’s facilities andto tell about our experiments, our ideas about the mechanisms underlyingthe astonishing physical phenomena discovered by us, and the bases of our

assertions about their existence in nature, in general, and their reproductionin our laboratory, in particular.

Selleri readily comprehended the difficulties we had encountered whentrying to publish the results of our experiments on the initiation of nuclearcombustion and laboratory nucleosynthesis in refereed journals. In the greatmajority of cases, the conclusions of referees consisted literally of severalphrases which were based on three fundamental, in their opinions, positions:

1. This cannot occur in principle; the assertions of the authors about thecontrolled realization of collective nuclear reactions in a superdensesubstance are based, most probably, on the incorrect interpretation of the results of measurements.

2. The experimental results declared by the authors have no theoreticalsubstantiation and contradict established physical ideas.

3. The authors propose the theoretical models of nonexistent physicalprocesses.

The recommendation of Selleri was a very constructive one: “In casessimilar to yours, it is very difficult to destroy the wall of distrust by piecemealpublication of the papers devoted to separate aspects of the project. I thinkit is necessary to quickly prepare an anthology of papers which must includethe most important things, starting from the conception of the experiments

3

S.V. Adamenko et al. (eds.), Controlled Nucleosynthesis, 3–17.c 2007. Springer.


19/784

4 S. V. Adamenko

and finishing with the presentation of the proposed theoretical models andmechanisms of the discovered phenomena.”

Appealing to me personally, Selleri added: “You should also not forget

to tell the history that led you to these problems, i.e., when and why didyou become interested in nuclear synthesis?”

In this context, the dedication to my father prefacing this chapteris not the usual expression of filial appreciation. Indeed, if my father helda pedestrian view of life and parental obligations, I would have no specialreason for evoking his memory in order to explain why I became motivatedto tackle a purely physical problem from the traditional viewpoint, not beinga professional physicist myself.

My father was an extraordinary person in many ways. In particular,he had a phenomenal memory that enabled him to recall and use, at anymoment and over many years if necessary, an inconceivable, from my view-point, number of dates, names, poems, quotations, facts of the own life,etc. This excellent memory and the ability to read rapidly caused my fatherto become an erudite person. He was especially interested in scientific andtechnical novelties and achievements, reports about which were numerousin the 1950s and 1960s.

From childhood, he dreamed about becoming a medical doctor. Butin 1939, at the age of 17, he was called up for the military service in the SovietArmy. Then, for the first 20 years of his long-term service, he tried manytimes, but without success, to go into retirement or, at least, to get permis-sion to enter the military-medical academy, which was far removed from hismilitary profession. Recalling the imaginative mind-set my father revealedin the process of my upbringing and the adult role games he invented forme and my friends, I am sure that he was also a real teacher at heart.

When I was in my fourth year, my father apparently thought it wastime to teach me the virtues of work and having a purpose in life. He broughthome a large ball bearing and challenged me to extract smaller balls fromit. I remember well how acutely I wanted to get them by myself and howsimple the problem seemed at first. However, the ball bearing resistsed myinitial efforts, and smaller balls did not jump out themselves. I had to graba file and begin to work. I do not recall how long this went on, but onlyremember that this Sisyphean labor annoyed me only when I realized that

I would be filing a long time, at least several days. So I complained to myfather. He was quick to advise that difficult tasks should be solved first inone’s head. Only if the solution becomes clear, a hand may reach for a tool.As an example, he told me about tricks a monkey had to use in order toaccess food frustrating conditions.


20/784

PREHISTORY 5

A prompt helped me. I understood that, firstly, the ball bearing willbe split up if it is thrown onto a stony roadway. Secondly, the resultingfragments will not disperse if the ball bearing is first placed in a small

knotted bag. We together executed the experiment, and the fragments werein my hands in no time.

This was my first creative success preserved in my memory as anexample of the efficiency resulting from a proper approach.

Seven years later, during an evening walk with my father, I was givena task whose comparatively simple solution I searched for most of my life. Itwas November 1, 1958; I remember the date only because I was ten the nextday. The main theme of our conversation was that, at that age, it was time

to think about serious matters and to prepare for adult life, rather than tosquander free time without any purpose in mind.

We looked at the evening sky, and my father taught me how to findthe Polar star and the easily recognized constellations. See, he said, starsdiffer in brightness and even in color, because they are at various distancesfrom us and have different sizes and temperatures. But they are all similar inprinciple to our Sun. Stars are shining very long, for billions of years. Thenthey become dim and collapse. Further, some stars explode. The radiant en-

ergy of stars originates in the combustion of matter. But it is not ordinarychemical combustion, like that in a campfire, but rather a thermonuclearone, wherein the lightest nuclei of hydrogen form the nuclei of heavier chem-ical elements by fusing many times. Physicists name processes of this kindthermonuclear synthesis.

In thermonuclear fusion, the amount of the released energy is millionsof times that produced in the usual combustion of coal or gas. The fusionprocess was already realized on earth in the explosions of hydrogen bombs.

If the energy of such explosions were to be used for peaceful purposes, thedemands of humans for energy would be satisfied for thousands of years.

Unfortunately, this prospect is presently out of reach—for the follow-ing reason: A thermonuclear charge can now be fired only by the explosion of an atomic bomb, for which a critical mass is required. Thus, an atomic bombcannot be made so small that it does not destroy everything for tens of kilo-meters around it. Consequently, scientists are now faced with the problemof inventing a trigger for thermonuclear charges that is simpler and cheaper,

so that it can be permanently used in a thermonuclear reactor producingheat and electricity.

It turns out that this problem is incredibly difficult and expensive tosolve. Scientists from various countries have tried to solve it jointly. If one isinterested in it, one can become a physicist and possibly, devise a suitablesolution.


21/784

6 S. V. Adamenko

– But why has this problem not been solved already, and what must bedone?

– Well, it is necessary to heat hydrogen to an extremely high tempera-

ture, much higher than that of the sun; and no such technology existsat present.

– But we can place hydrogen at the focus of a great magnifying lens andheat it in such a way to any temperature!

– This method leads nowhere.

– Why?

– Things are not as simple, as it seems. The mastering of such a source of energy is a very complicated problem, though the experts believe thatthe problem is not hopeless. Learn, examine, and dream! Anybody hasa chance if he or she tries. As is known, complex problems sometimeshave simple solutions.

I often recall the evening conversation with my father about stars andthe tempting subject of nuclear synthesis as a particularly seminal event of my childhood.

In the years that followed, the problem he first posed attracted memore and more. I can give no rational explanation why the persistentthoughts about the possible, from my viewpoint, mechanisms and natureof nuclear synthesis became a habit, a hobby, as it were—one that did notrequire separate time, since it settled in the back of my mind, where itnonetheless kept my imagination in training.

For many years, I had no serious plans for solving the synthesis prob-lem, as I could not imagine that my own contribution would be very mean-

ingful in comparison with the efforts of true experts. So my musings remainedon an amateurish level.Considering stably functioning biological and technological systems

composed of simple elements of the same type, I searched for a hidden logicof their origin and evolution, and for a mechanism that could help me withthe unsolved problem of controlled nuclear synthesis.

I was troubled by the fact that a process that produces enormousamounts of energy, serves as its main source in the universe, arises in stars

spontaneously and keeps running there by itself, does not seem reproducibleunder terrestrial conditions, despite all our scientific and financial efforts.For a long time, it seems illogical that the simplest energy process

of fusion of light nuclei, in which cosmic nuclei easily participate for objec-tive reasons, is not realized in a controlled and efficient manner on earth,even though scientists have gained a high degree of comprehension aboutthe structure and behavior of atomic nuclei as well as the formalization and


22/784

PREHISTORY 7

mathematical description of the processes involving them. I got the impres-sion that the search was carried out in the wrong direction and that effortswere aimed at forcing nuclei meant to be fused into a behavior not peculiar

to them, though fusion could occur with the selection of a more favorablefinal state.

This simple thought served as a first prompt: It is necessary toabstract from a seemingly inevitable final state of a system of nuclei and toconsider more attentively the possibly optimum conditions for the transition of this system from a given initial state to the required final one. While pur-suing postgraduate studies and learning the mathematical methods for thesynthesis of multiply connected dynamical systems with optimum stability,

I undertook a search for, and an analysis of, such regularities in the synthe-sis of the complex systems composed of interacting (exchanging energy orinformation) elements of any physical nature which would be common fornuclear and, e.g., biological or controlling structures. The main question wasas follows: For what reason do “independent” elements combine to form sys-tems and ensembles restricting their freedom? What conditions control thesizes of systems, the number of primary elements, and the structure and theforce (energy) of bonds between? What criterion guides the initial building

blocks into forming a particular final product? Is it possible that, in order tocomplete this quest, they have randomly to “survey” all possible structuralvariations, among which would appear the unique required solution? Biologyand genetics answer the last question in the negative: Admissible solutionswould have caused Homo sapiens, who invents questions and searches foranswers, not to appear for still many billions of years! Changing structureduring their development, complex self-organizing systems progress to theiroptimum structure along a route that differs slightly from the shortest possi-

ble one. This can only mean that the systems are surely led by some force. Inthis case, in each step of their development (rearrangement), a systems can“estimate”, in some manner, the degree of its imperfection and can “detect”the reason for it, by getting a stimulus for the next step on a gradual trackto the optimum state. It is well known that every stable system is certainlyoptimum in some sense. In theory, the corresponding criterion of optimalitycan always be found on the whole by solving the inverse problem of synthesisfor the system under study, such as a traffic network, living cell, atomic nu-

cleus, or atom. Every self-organizing structure has its own system-formingcriterion. By what does it differ from a set of other possible ones, whatdoes it demand from the system, how does it appear, and how does it takeinto account the features of the system and the conditions defining its self-development? In the mid-1970s, while engaged in my postgraduate tasks,I searched for an analytic solution to the problem dealing with the synthesis


23/784

8 S. V. Adamenko

of an optimum control with feedbacks for a controlled linear dynamical sys-tem subject to restrictions in the form of proper (invariant) linear subspacesthat are specified a priori , in other words, with restrictions on the phase

portrait of the optimum multidimensional dynamical system. As a tool, I atfirst used the classical method of analytic construction of optimum regula-tors (see Refs. 1–3). But it rapidly became obvious that no analytic methodsfor the systems with the mentioned restrictions existed. The developmentof appropriate methods was the theme of my dissertation. In particular,I proposed the method of binary synthesis , whose peculiarity resided in thefollowing: Contrary to the classical approach, the quality criterion for a tran-sient process as a measure of integral excitation of a system in the spaces of

phase coordinates and controlling actions was set in the form of an integralof the so-called optimum target function, rather than by the integral of thesum of a priori positive-definite functions of the phase coordinates and con-trolling actions. This last sum becomes the optimum target function (buta posteriori !) when the unknown control vector U(t) as a function of timeis replaced in the corresponding term of the sum by the required optimumlaw of control with a feedback U0 [x (t)], i.e., we have a function of phasecoordinates of the optimized system.

The sense of such a transformation of the classical problem of thesynthesis of an optimum dynamical system (it turns out to be a generaliza-tion) consists in the fact that the a posteriori optimum target function isthe Lyapunov function for an optimized closed system (a positive-definitequadratic form of the phase coordinates in the linear case), whose set of quickest-descent trajectories approaches (as closely as desired with a weak-ening of the restrictions on the control) the phase portrait of the optimizedsystem. Thus, the a priori setting of an optimum target function allows

one to form any desired phase portrait in the process of synthesizing theoptimum system, i.e., the eigenfunctions of the dynamical system and itseigennumbers.

Application of the method of binary synthesis to optimize dynamicalsystems allowed me to get a number of interesting results.

The first formal result consists in the conclusion that one can com-pletely reject the necessity, inevitable in the classical case, to seek the para-meters of the a priori quadratic forms of a quality functional (the criterion

of optimality) by the method of an actually arbitrary exhaustive search inorder to get the more or less satisfactory phase portrait of an optimum sys-tem. I note that such a portrait can nevertheless never “fall” into the setrestrictions. Instead, the necessary , but basically not guessed , parameters of the a priori quadratic form of the criterion and parameters of the optimumfeedback law were finally derived in the framework of the method of binary


24/784

PREHISTORY 9

synthesis from the solutions of the relevant systems of equations—which are,naturally, also the generalizations of the systems of equations belonging tothe classical version.

In other words, two optimization problems were solved within theframework of the method of binary synthesis, at least from the formal view-point. Our direct problem was to search for U0[x(t)], while the inverseproblem consisted in the search for a term in the integrand of the qualitycriterion as an a priori indefinable quadratic form in the phase coordinatesof the system. This term is a priori unknown but uniquely necessary for theapplication of the required restrictions. Just this circumstance explains ouruse the adjective “binary” to qualify the proposed method of synthesis.

The second, more significant, result of this method is that its naturalmotions relative to, e.g., any hyperplane restriction given in phase space canpossess, if necessary, an arbitrarily small inertia. Moreover, the givenhyperplane-restriction can differ slightly, to any desired degree, from the(n − 1)-dimensional (n being the dimensionality of phase space) properinvariant subspace of the optimized system. In particular, this means theminimization of the excited (forced) motion energy of the optimized systemrelative to the own relevant hyperplane arbitrarily located, in the general

case, in phase space.It is easy to see that this actually implies that the procedure of binary

synthesis allows one to attain the maximum stability and minimum dissipa-tivity of the system with respect to a “pathological” external perturbationwhich moves the point representing the system beyond the given invarianthyperplane possessing the highest priority among the goals of the optimiza-tion or those of the homeostasis of the system.

The external perturbation setting a direction in the system’s phase

space such that the forced movement along it is characterized by the max-imum absorption of the energy dissipated in the system, which leads to itsmaximum heating or to the maximum destruction, was called the “domi-nant perturbation”. A dominant perturbation exciting synchronously andwith identical phase all the degrees of freedom or all interacting elements of the system is called the “global dominant perturbation”.

It was easy to see that, in the framework of the problem of binary syn-thesis, the optimum structure of a multiply connected dynamical system and

parameters of the formal criterion can be found in a self-consistent way asfunctions of the exceptionally objective factors: namely, the parameters of an object of the optimization and the parameters of external perturbationsacting on it.

It thus turned out that, in the problem of binary synthesis under thecondition of the setting (or the determination by the system itself) of the


25/784

10 S. V. Adamenko

direction of action of the global dominant perturbation, the determination of an optimum structure of the bonds between elements of the system can occurself-consistently and simultaneously with the search for the corresponding

(not fixed a priori ) parameters of the criterion of optimality of the process.Similar to what holds for the optimum system, this process depends on itsinitial parameters and also on external perturbations acting on the system.Upon a change in external perturbations, we can observe, in principle, theautomatic “switching on” of the next cycles of the adaptation of the systemto external conditions. These cycles, by repeating with each recurrence of adominant perturbation, are able to support the process of continuous self-organization and reorganization of the system and to ensure asymptotically,

in particular:

• The “reflection of images” of the external dominant perturbations inthe structure of bonds between elements of the system and, as a con-sequence, in the set of its own subspaces of different dimensionalities,which can be considered as the operation of a distinctive mechanismof the system’s memory and its adaptation to the external dominantperturbations.

• The maximization of stability and the minimization of inertia for thenatural motions of the system that arise in its phase space as a resultof the action of external dominant perturbations.

The statement of the mentioned peculiarities of the problem and thebinary synthesis algorithm for a dynamical system made a strong impres-sion on me in 1980. In these peculiarities, one may guess the characteristicfeatures of a long-expected mechanism of the “self-synthesis” to lie. The

last was comprehended as the self-organizing self-developing “not powerful”natural process of nucleosynthesis, temporarily unclarified, but certainlyexisting and held responsible for the formation of a whole set of the naturallycoexistent nuclei and atoms of chemical elements.

Against the background of the discovered peculiarities of the offeredalgorithm of the optimization of structures, I made an assumption on theexistence of a universal natural regularity which I called tentatively theprinciple of regularization of perturbations and dynamical harmonization

of systems . This regularity indicates the general direction for the improve-ment of self-organizing multicomponent dynamical systems: At the expenseof a restriction of the individual freedom of interacting elements (particles),one can reach a maximally attainable decrease in the inertia of a reaction of the whole system to various external dominant perturbation that coherentlyact on each participating element and thus have the distinctive signs of amass force.


26/784

PREHISTORY 11

At that time, such a “discovery for internal use” caused me to expe-rience an intense emotional excitement. I remember well-being overcome bya spell of euphoria.

Thus, the process of synthesis of self-organizing dynamical systems,which one can realistically apply to nuclear structures as well, reveals thelogic of initiation and development that appeals to my way of thinking.

Intuition prompted me to surmise that, regardless of the degree of practical usefulness and real novelty of the formulated principle, the ap-parently self-sufficient physical mechanism of reflection on the informationcontained in the structures of dynamical systems could become a peculiarkey to comprehending the required self-organizing mechanism of nuclear

synthesis on the macroscopic level, which continued to be a castle in theair. Analysis of a system optimized in the framework of the binary synthesisalgorithm showed that a parallel consequence of such a “behavior” of theself-organizing dynamical system will be a maximization of the stability of its own motion excited by a reflected external dominant perturbation, as wellas the minimization of a “destructibility” of the system under the action of this perturbation; this can be interpreted naturally as the maximization of the binding energy of the system with regard to restrictions on the physical

nature of system-forming elements and the forces of their mutual interaction.At that time, the computer realization of the binary synthesis algo-

rithm showed that it is possible to attain an arbitrarily small inertia of thesystem in the direction of the action of a dominant external perturbationupon a sufficiently large number of “bound” (interacting) elements, despitea restriction on the forces of interaction (on the intensity of bonds) betweenthem; in this case, the system’s inertia on each of the remaining degrees of freedom can be arbitrarily slightly different from the initial one.

The mentioned peculiarities of the organization of optimum systems,despite the colossal differences of the used limitedly simplified descriptionsfrom adequate physical models of atomic-nuclear and other natural struc-tures, allowed me to assume that the basic synergetic properties of systemsdid not depend on their specific nature and always manifest themselves inthe self-organization of complex dynamical structures undergoing the orga-nizing action of intense (dominant) external perturbations.

By the beginning of 1986, similar thoughts led me to conclude that

the main difficulty for the controlled synthesis of nuclei consisted in theartificial creation of just such external dominant perturbation common to thetotality of nuclei involved in the process of synthesis, whose optimum “reflec-tion” would be completed, in the sense of the above-presented approach (thebinary synthesis), by the exothermic (exoenergetic) fusion of initial nuclei.


27/784

12 S. V. Adamenko

I further reasoned as follows:If the factor defining the result of any synthesis is a dominant per-

turbation common to the interacting initial components, such a pertur-

bation must exist and play a defining role in the natural processes suchas a simple fusion of nuclei (i.e., in the “thermonuclear synthesis” in thetraditional sense) and, in the wider sense, the complex process of naturalnucleosynthesis, whose products are the nuclei of all chemical elements upto the heaviest ones. If such system-forming action were to be discovered,then it would be possible to search for its analog artificially realized underlaboratory conditions.

These were the preliminary positions, in general terms, of my con-

ception regarding the artificial initiation of self-organizing nuclear synthesis,which were formulated in 1987–1988, 30 years after I first encountered theproblem.

If it were not for an improbable coincidence of circumstances, thenecessity or even the occasion to tell this history would never have occurred.At least, I had no such intentions until February 2000.

At that time, a decade after the start of the “Perestroika” in theUSSR and five years after Ukraine gained its independence, I together with

many colleagues in the profession had to work in the field of business andalready saw the decline of personal dreams about thermonuclear synthesis.Moreover, the inexorable chain of some events deprived me of the last hopeto be involved the solution of the thermonuclear synthesis problem. But thesituation was about to change due to unforseen circumstances.

In 1996, my dear friend Dr. Boris Sinyuta, an expert in the fieldof radiation medicine, who since passed away to my deep regret, introducedme to Dr. Vladimir Stratienko of the Kharkiv Physico-Technical Institute in

order to discuss commercial plans for the production of isotopes for medicalpurposes in Ukraine.

Dr. Stratienko saw me as a former young scientist and now a busi-nessman who, on the one hand, had some money and, on the other hand,was ready to share it for the benefit of nuclear science and scientists, if aninteresting project presented itself.

So, Dr. Stratienko tried to convince me that, by using microbeamsof relativistic electrons in a vacuum diode, it was possible to focus them at

the end of a thin cylindrical target anode up to a current density of at least1010A · cm−2. He assumed that this would lead to the formation of a highlyionized plasma in a small near-axis volume where the beam interact with thetarget. Such a plasma could be compressed and held by the magnetic fieldof the beam in a state with density and temperature high enough to ensure


28/784

PREHISTORY 13

a positive energy-gain in the scheme of inertial thermonuclear synthesis if asuitable thermonuclear (e.g., D-T) target is used.

To practically design a driver on the basis of a hypothetically existent

mechanism for the self-focusing of an electron beam to extreme currentdensities, a relatively small financial support by a group of enthusiasts, livingin the difficult period of the global economic transformation, was required.

At that time, there was not, and could not be, any convincing proof of the feasibility of the proposed scheme. However, all doubts were rejected onthe basis of a presentiment, rather than of a comprehension, that a focusedelectron beam can fully play the role of a long-expected dominant pertur-bation for the set of particles forming the completely ionized substance of

a target and compressed by the magnetic field of the beam. Strangely, aninner voice commanded us to act, promising the realization of a dream inthe face of an adverse reality.

The temptation was great, and the sum of money required for supportof the pilot was small and available. So, the decision was made, business wasceased, and I began recounting time in my last attempt to participate insolving the problem of controlled thermonuclear synthesis. Soon an initiativegroup, composed of Kiev and Kharkiv experts (mainly theorists) in the

fields of solid state physics, plasma physics, high-energy physics, acceleratingtechniques, the theory of systems, and nuclear physics, was formed.

For at least three years, we held on a frequent basis seminars in Kievand Kharkiv in turn; we discussed mechanisms, models, analogies, theories,the experiments performed by others, and plans for the establishment of alaboratory, in which we hoped to solve, by simple and efficient means, theproblem of controlled thermonuclear synthesis in its inertial version. In thefirst stage, we presume to achieve success with the help of a self-compressing,

“self-lacing” hard-current microbeam of electrons. The beam directed on theend or point of a target-anode should move continuously along the targetaxis, “consume” its core, and transform it into a superheated, supercom-pressed thermonuclear plasma until the pulse ceases. This process can bemade to run with any required frequency by releasing the necessary energy.

Unfortunately, after analyzing for some time the essence of the workthat had to be carried out de facto by a self-pinching beam moving alongthe target axis, I began to doubt the plan would succeed. The reason for my

doubt was that the outlined scenario did not include something similar to aglobal dominant perturbation for the target nuclei “boiling” in the plasmaplate. In this case, according to the logic of my own basic conception, it wasdifficult to rely on the appearance of conditions for the realization of a mech-anism of self-organizing synthesis (presumably, it should be similar to thenatural mechanism). Hence, one could not expect that the initiated process


29/784

14 S. V. Adamenko

would generate the required synthesized nuclei that were stable with respectto the action generating them and were naturally stable by possessing themaximum store of the stability to a decay.

I felt too näıve at that time to discuss my own “nuclear-synergeticprojects” with my colleagues, anticipating their ironic response. At least,that’s what I thought.

All the same, at the beginning of 1998, the initiative group includedthe following persons: myself, heading the group; Dr. N. Tolmachev, formerlya student at the Kharkiv Aircraft Institute and then the director of a mul-tiprofile building firm, was a sponsor of, and participant in, brainstormingsessions; active Kharkiv scientists, including an expert on nuclear physics,

the owner of a huge collection of papers on a number of trends related toour interests, Dr. V. Stratienko; Professor I. Mikhailovsky; Dr. E. Bulyak,profoundly knowledgeable about beams and accelerators; Drs. V. Novikovand A. Pashchenko, the authors of numerous papers on statistical theoryand thermodynamics, the theory of plasma, beams of charged particles, andnonlinear processes; Dr. I. Shapoval, an expert on mathematical model-ing of physical processes and on computer structures; Kiev theorists: corre-sponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Professor

P. Fomin of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of NASU; an expert in thefield of coherent processes and nuclear physics, Professor V. Vysotskii of T. Shevchenko Kiev National University, the author of one of the first mod-els of inversionless γ -lasers. Up to the middle of 1998, the initiative groupheld the view that further theoretical discussions were unpromising withoutan experimental foundation and without the possibility to practically verifythe developed ideas.

So, it became urgent to find new investors who could help in the

establishment of a small research laboratory and in the creation of an experi-mental setup that would allow us to verify the main working hypotheses andselect the viable ones from among them.

At that moment, deus ex machina again intervened, owing to a meet-ing I had with the directors of a large Kiev business concern, the Kiev Poly-technical Institute graduates Andrei Bovsunovsky and Aleksandr Kokhno,who after 1991 had left the laboratories of military plants and, together withpartners, established a large-scale multiprofile holding.

After a half-year study of the problem, new potential investors werefired up by the idea and finally agreed to support our work.

We posed the following program: Establish a physical laboratory innine months, design, produce, and launch the setup (a hard-current high-voltage generator of electric high-power pulses), provide the formation of afocused beam of electrons and, with its help, get and demonstrate the real


30/784

PREHISTORY 15

evidence for the attainment of the introduction of energy into a target. Thislast step would ensure, in particular, the fulfillment of the conditions for thepositive gain of energy needed for inertial thermonuclear synthesis.

We had only nine months, and it was difficult to imagine that theallocated funds would suffice for the posed task.

However, we had no choice. Besides, I felt the inexplicable confidence,fed by a sixth sense in the saving potentiality of the general hypothesis aboutthe principle of dynamical harmonization.

In late April 1999, due to efforts of new investors, we organized theElectrodynamics Laboratory in the structure of the Kiev company “Enran.”The purpose of the Laboratory was to realize the project which received the

symbolic name Luch . The mission of the Laboratory was briefly formulatedas follows: to create an experimental beam-based driver for inertial ther-monuclear synthesis on the principles of superconcentration of the energy of an electron beam in the small internal (near-axis) volume of a thin cylindri-cal target.

After nine months, in January 2000, the private physical laboratory,possessing the necessary measuring and vacuum facilities, was functioning aswas planned, in the leased and repaired premises of a deserted production

base. We launched a generator of electric power pulses which allowed usto derive a beam of electrons with a total energy up to 300 J and a pulseduration up to 100 ns.

During this period, we carried out the initial 35 experiments — dis-charges with thin, up to 300 µm, target anodes.

Most members of our team believed that our goal was in sight. Verysoon we would observe a thin channel along the target axis as a result of theformation of a self-pinching plasma with an ion density >1024 cm−3 and an

ion temperature >10 keV. Thus, the product nτ should exceed the thresholdvalue 1014 s · cm−3 and reach a value >5 · 1016 s · cm−3. What would remainwas only to place a thermonuclear target on the axis, register a positive re-lease of energy, mail the communication to Phys. Rev. Lett., and confidentlyto await the acclaim of the scientific community.

However, the process was not running for some reason!The beam resisted our attempt to squeeze it along the target axis

and thus to create a thermonuclear plasma along the way. Moreover, we did

not practically observe any evidences for the localization of a more or lesssignificant energy in some small volume of substance. Our optimism beganto wane. The experts who had recently foreseen the required behavior of abeam gave various recommendations for changes in the parameters of thedriver and in the diode geometry, but then their flow of recommendationsceased and the brightness in their eyes faded.


31/784

16 S. V. Adamenko

The time given for the finding of results had passed, and the allocatedfunds were spent. We arrived at a dramatic collapse of our risky attempt.The “anesthetic” thought that “we are not the first, and we will not be the

last” also gave no consolation.Our investors were not indifferent observers; they asked me, as the

head of the project and the Laboratory, only two questions: “What does itmean?” and “Where are your regularization and harmonization?”

What remained for me was to recognize defeat and say good-bye forever to my beloved physics of nuclear synthesis after a fascinating but brief and unrequitted fling.

However, an inner voice imposed an inexplicable calm and asserted

that literally nothing was done to realize the idea championed by it.I had to analyze again the reasons for our failure. To do this analysis

and to make a last attempt to successfully carry out the experiment, we hadtwo to three weeks; after the end of February 2000, work in the scope of ourproject had to be interrupted for a long period or for ever.

Our analysis revealed the following:

1. The localization of the focus of a superdense electron beam on the end

of a target-anode is not stable. Hence, one should use a compulsoryforce fixation by unknown means.

2. Even if the above problem could be solved, the compression and su-perintense heating by the self-focusing electron beam cannot be con-sidered a dominant perturbation common to the atoms and nuclei of atarget substance, because, in this case, a coherent and unidirectionalexcitation of their states by a mass force is absent in principle. More-over, the intense heating of a substance , only by increasing the energy

of the chaotic movement of particles, cannot play the role of a dom-inant external perturbation in principle and, hence, cannot stimulatethe evolutionary energy-gained fusion of the initial particles of a nu-clear fuel into the more highly developed nuclear structures of synthesisproducts.

In other words, it was obvious that the heating of the plasma hampersthe efficient and successful self-organizing synthesis of nuclei; rather than

stimulating this process, it only creates the conditions for random binarynuclear collisions, only a small part of which can result in fusion. In thiscase, though, the reactions of synthesis for the lightest nuclei are energy-gained and are accompanied by the release of free energy; the mass defectformation does not lead for binary reactions to a decrease in the inertia of the entire totality of elements participating in the response on the exter-nal action by any from the separated degrees of freedom in the space of states


32/784

PREHISTORY 17

of the initial system of particles and hence does not correspond to the prin-ciple of dynamical harmonization.

Nothing remained to be done except for one more attempt, possibly

the last, to find the “golden key” for nucleosynthesis which, on the onehand, could explain at least a part of the actually observed astrophysicalphenomena related to the creation of the spectrum of the chemical elementsand, on the other hand, would admit the occurrence of nucleosynthesis underlaboratory conditions.

Despite the drawn-out prehistory, the fast choice of a successful, asis now clear, solution was promoted by time restrictions and the completeabsence of any constructive ideas except ones not canonized in the traditionalapproaches to controlled thermonuclear synthesis.

It became clear that the electron beam by itself is not a coherent andmonochromatic flow of energy; it transfers energy to a target for a periodthat is long on the nuclear scale and thus cannot play the role of a dominantexternal perturbation for a macroscopic ensemble of particles that could actsynchronously and co-phasally on them all as a mass force.

At the same time, it is difficult to find an alternative to a weaklyrelativistic electron beam from the viewpoint of both the efficiency of a vol-ume interaction with the target substance and the excitation of its collective

degrees of freedom.One day, it suddently dawned on me, as a fully obvious thought,

that the electron beam should be used for the excitation of a coherentavalanche-like self-supporting low or isentropic secondary (with respect tothe beam) process which will develop by the laws of nonlinear phenomenawith a positive feedback.

The requirements of coherence and self-preservation for the initiatedsecondary process imply that this process has to be wavy and soliton-like,

whereas the necessity of both a continuous “sharpening” of the process anda concentration of the released energy demands that the process should beself-focusing and spherically or cylindrically (concentrically) convergent.

Intuitively, I felt the impending birth of the conception of the artificially initiated collapse of a microtarget , which is considered in the nextchapter. This brought to a close the long prehistory of the invention of ameans of shock compression of a substance, whose substantiation, experi-mental testing, and attempted theoretical explanation constitute the bulk

of the present book.


33/784

2

SELF-ORGANIZING NUCLEOSYNTHESISIN SUPERDENSE PLASMA

S. V. Adamenko

In the last decades of the 20th century, revolutionary progress has been madein studying the mechanisms of self-organization of matter (see Refs. [4–9]),using fundamental knowledge in many areas of science. Principles of self-organization developed in those studies have been successfully applied tounderstanding and controlling many complex processes, such as chemicalreactions, laser generation, etc.

At the same time, the role of collective self-organization processes inphysics of elementary particles, atomic nuclei, and natural nucleosynthesisstill is not realized as being of key importance. The next years are to bemarked by the ever-increasing interest in the processes of self-organizationin the nuclear matter, and the change of focus from the problems related toanalysis of its components towards those of finding the laws applying to thesynthesis of its structures. In our view, this is the area to look for solutionsto a number of fundamental physical problems.

It is well known that solutions to intricate problems are often basedon fresh ideas and hypotheses that push the research in nontraditional areas.This monograph is the first presentation of the interrelated key experimentaland theoretical results of the Luch project which has been no exception tothe above.

Over a long period of time (since the early 1970s), researchers wholater became involved in this project are gradually creating a set of workinghypotheses, as well as system-level, logical, and physical models aimed atthe creation of such scenarios of nuclear transformations occurring in naturethat would allow the following to be done:

• to explain consistently, without adding new paradoxes while solving

ones that already exist, a wider range of phenomena related to nucleartransformations observed in nature, as well as in physical experiments;

• to find such realistic approaches towards the problem of controllablenucleosynthesis that would open new ways for the creation of envi-ronmentally safe technology for the deactivation of radioactivity that

19

S.V. Adamenko et al. (eds.), Controlled Nucleosynthesis, 19–51.c 2007. Springer.


34/784

20 S. V. Adamenko

would be self-sufficient in energy terms, through a deep nuclear trans-formation of industrial radioactive waste, by producing a combinationof stable isotopes of newly created chemical elements.

In our view, there are no fundamental obstacles preventing us fromraising such a problem, since, first, it does not contradict the fundamentallaws of the Nature, and, second, for the macroscopic quantity of a radioac-tive material, being any given mixture of isotopes (including both radioactiveand stable nuclei), even without initiating its neutronization and protoniza-tion, there will always exist such a distribution of protons and neutrons(whose numbers are determined by the composition of the initial mixture

of isotopes) among newly created stable nuclei that the weighted averagebinding energy per nucleon will be higher than that for the initial radioac-tive mixture, so that the redistribution will be accompanied by the energyrelease sufficient for its self-sustaining development.

It seems obvious that, in order to bring, in a controlled way, a macro-scopic quantity of nuclei or atoms from an initial state into a final one beingexpedient in energy terms, one should take into account the potential mech-anisms of collective nuclear and atom transformations, while the dynamical

transient processes will lead to the self-organization in complex systems of nucleons or those of nucleons and electrons.

As a huge contribution to the development of the theory of self-organization in matter, there have been ideas developed by the Brusselsschool led by I. Prigogine (see, e.g., Refs. [4,5]). The core gist of those ideasis as follows. Nonequilibrium processes, instabilities, and fluctuations playthe key role in the creation of structures in the material world, and all sys-tems contain subsystems that keep fluctuating. Sometimes, an individual

fluctuation may become so strong due to a positive feedback that the exist-ing organization does not survive and is destroyed at a special point calledthe bifurcation point and reaches a higher level of the ordered organization.Prigogine has called those structures with high degree of order as “dissipa-tive structures”.

2.1. Synthesis Process as an Instrument for Changing the Inertiaof the Interactive Particles Ensemble

Around the bifurcation point, physical systems become very sensitive to eventhe weakest external impacts, and, in a state being far from equilibrium, suchan impact may cause a rearrangement of the structure.

Note that it was usually assumed that the external controllingparameters are changing sufficiently slowly. Of course, dynamic (pulse)or stochastic changes in external controlling parameters open new


35/784

SELF-ORGANIZING NUCLEOSYNTHESIS IN SUPERDENSE PLASMA 21

opportunities for the self-organization and application of the mathemati-cal control theory.

The control theory is the area, where the author was also involved

at the start of his scientific career. He was studying the possibilities forobtaining an analytical solution to the problem of synthesis of the optimalmultilinked linear dynamical system which was analyzed over continuous ordiscrete time in its phase space, with the constraints set by the followingequations (this consideration involves a discrete time):

PT i · xk ≡ 0, k > k0, if PT i · xk0 ≡ 0, (2.1)where xk is the n-dimensional vector of phase coordinates (state vector)

of the dynamical system at the k-th point of the trajectory; (·)T is thetransposition symbol; Pi is the direction vector for a hyperplane in thephase space, in which trajectories of the synthesized system should remainover the whole duration of the transient process, while the image point of the system returns to the undisturbed state or to the program trajectory,where xk ≡ 0.

It was proposed to use the so-called binary synthesis method (seeRefs. 13–15).

The gist of this method is the creation of an algorithm for finding theoptimal control law with feedback,

U0k = K 0xk, (2.2)

where K 0 is the unknown optimal control k × n matrix. This law wouldprovide, along the trajectories of the linear dynamical system defined by thedifference equations

xk+1 = Axk + BK 0xk + qkΨk, (2.3)

the achievement, in the course of the transition of the system into the undis-turbed state, xk ≡ 0, of the minimum of the a posteriori quality functional

I =∞k=0

xT kQxk + U

T 0kB

T BU0k

=

∞k=0

xT k

Q + K T 0 B

T BK 0

xk → min .(2.4)

Here, not only the matrix K 0, but also (unlike the classical approach) matrixQ are not set a priori but are connected through the equation

Q + K T 0 BT BK 0 =

i

αiPiPT i + I, (2.5)

with the positively defined matrix of quadric quantics of the so-calledoptimal goal function that reflects the optimization goals which are known


36/784

22 S. V. Adamenko

a priori , e.g.,

ω0

(xk) ∆= xT

ki

αiPiPT

i

+ I xk = xT k

C xk. (2.6)

The a priori goal function (Eq. 2.6) is, in its turn, nothing but a sumof independent “penalties” with the respective priorities or weight coeffi-cients, αi, for the deviation of trajectories of the optimal system (Eq. 2.3)from each of l set goal hyperplanes (Eq. 2.1).

In Eqs. 2.2–2.6:A — (n

× n) matrix, the operator of the linearized dynamical

system;B — control (n × k) matrix;Ψk — disturbance intensity at the k-th point of the trajectory;qk — n-dimensional vector of coefficients of the sensitivity of the

system phase variables to the disturbance at the k-th pointof the trajectory (the disturbance direction);

I — unitary (n × n) matrix;αi > 0 — the numerical value of the relative priority of the i-th

constraint (Eq. 2.1).The finding of the structure of optimal links for the system (Eq. 2.3)

with the quality criterion Eqs. 2.4–2.6 is based on the dynamic programmingmethods. According to those methods (see Refs. 16–18), the optimal controllaw for the system (Eq. 2.3) should satisfy the conditions

K 0 = −(R + BT P B)−1BT P A, (2.7)

where, for the quality functional Eq. 2.4, R = BT B, and P satisfies thematrix equation

P = C + AT P A − AT P B(R + BT P B)−1× (I + R(R + BT P B)−1)BT P A, (2.8)

which can be considered as a generalization of the discrete Riccati’s equation

appearing in the classical variant of the optimal control problem for a linearsystem with quadratic functional.Equation 2.8 can be solved using the iteration method similar to those

used for the quadratic discrete Riccati’s equation, one of those methodsbeing described in Ref. 6.

It can be proven that, if Ψk = 0, when k > k0, then it is possible,through increasing the values of the weight coefficients αi in Eq. 2.6, to


37/784


38/784

24 S. V. Adamenko

Dominatingdisturbance vector

Trajectories:

for the optimized system

target function

Linear subspace of the target-delimiter

Velocity vector of the optimizedsystem

Starting point of a disturbed stateof the system when k = 0

Level lines of the a priori target function

for the system that has not been optimized

for the steepest descent of the a priori

Fig. 2.1. Transformation of phase trajectories for the dynamical system asa result of its optimization using the binary synthesis algorithm.

simultaneously with finding the respective parameters (which are not fixeda priori ) of the optimality criterion for the process Eqs. 2.4–2.10 whichdepends, like the system itself, only on the system’s initial parameters andexternal disturbances that form the system. When disturbances change,then, in principle, next cycles of adaptation to external conditions canautomatically start in the system. Those cycles, which repeat with everyoccurrence of the dominating disturbance, are able to maintain the processof continuous self-organization and reorganization in the system, providingasymptotically, in particular, the following:

• “reflection of images” of external dominating disturbances in the struc-ture of links between the system elements and, as a result, theirreflection in the set of its proper subspaces of various dimensions, whichcan be seen as some sort of “memory mechanism” in the system, andas the system’s adaptation to dominating external disturbances

• maximization of stability and minimization of inertness of the system’s

forced motions that emerge in its phase space as a result of externaldominating impacts

The binary synthesis algorithm will obviously have similar distinctivefeatures of self-organization when optimizing proper motions of the systemfor which the following is true:


39/784


• Components of the state vector, xk, reflect the disturbance of theinternal degrees of freedom of the dynamical system or those of theparticles it comprises.

• Functional Eq. 2.4 has the dimension of energy and is the integral mea-sure of the excitation of a system and its components, or the integralmeasure of the uncertainty of their state.

2.2. Main Hypotheses to the Conception of Optimal Conditionsfor Nuclear Synthesis

Based on the results of researches from a viewpoint of the control theoryon the qualitative features of multilinked dynamical systems using methodsof the control theory, as well algorithms of optimization for their phasetrajectories (see Refs. 16, 17), we later analyzed the most characteristic traitsof self-organization in multilinked, stable dynamical structures (systems) of any physical nature, including atomic nuclei as stable assemblies of nucleons.

This analysis resulted in understanding of the key role of the followingfactors in processes of such nature:

• intense external disturbances of a certain kind , called dominating

• general universal law, which can be called the principle of regulari-zation of dominating disturbances and dynamic harmonization of systems

The dynamic harmonization principle is implemented when a set of links between source units is formed in a self-consistent way in the structurethat is created or reorganized. The set of links formed under this principleminimizes or maximizes its inertness of the structure in the direction of

the dominating disturbance vector in the system’s phase space.Note that, in physical terms, the problem of inertness evolution canbe reduced (taking into account the equivalence between energy and mass)to the problem of evolution of the system’s energy. That is, the energy of a system of particles will include, of course, the energy of their interaction,which will define the binding energy. Thus, the conclusions made using thecontrol theory could, in principle, be applied to the problems of energyconsumption and release. This idea compels us to analyze the problem of

fusion from the nontraditional perspective of self-organization theory andcontrol theory.As a starting point for such an analysis, we take a set of basic

hypotheses on the possible universal mechanisms of self-organization andreorganization in complex dynamical electron, nucleon, and nuclear struc-tures considered from the most general perspective of the system analysisand stability theory.


40/784

26 S. V. Adamenko

The first basic hypothesis is as follows: A set of interacting nuclei (as well as that of interacting atoms) is a dynamical system with links, which is subjected to the general laws of self-organization in multilinked, stable

dynamical systems, in particular, the dynamic harmonization of systems.The assumption about the universal nature of the dynamic har-

monization principle results in the statement that any set2 of interactingelements in which old links are destroyed and/or new ones are establishedbetween elements, when external forces are applied to it, will self-consistently“determine” the optimal direction for changing its structure.

The forceful coercive creation of the subjectively “needed” structureby applying an external impact directly to the system elements or links

between them (controlled synthesis) may produce the required result in theonly case where the structure being forcefully created is identical to the one that corresponds to the dynamic harmonization principle .

Looking at the problem of the initiation of self-sustaining exoergicreactions of nucleosynthesis, we can single out what is probably the mostimportant factor in this process: a decrease in the average and/or total massof participating nucleons (i.e., the creation of the mass defect).

As we know, the mass of any material object (nucleon, nucleus, atom,

etc.) is a measure of inertness of that object.Following the above logic of the principle of dynamic harmoniza-

tion, a solution to the problem of obtaining a negative mass defect andcorresponding energy release should be found in the area of choosing aninitiating mechanism (a driver) whose action would stimulate the systembeing reformed, which is in general an electron-nucleus or electron-nucleonmegasystem—the local volume of the target source matter, precisely to de-crease the average and/or total inertness (i.e., mass) of the particles affected

by the dominating impact.It is obvious that if there is no acceleration, then the motion (behav-

ior) of the system will not depend on the inertness or masses of the particlesthat make up the system. Hence, a conclusion can be made that, in termsof the dynamic harmonization principle, spending the energy of an externalimpact (driver) for the source particles to only reach a high final velocity or energy would mean a failure to use the evolutionary potential of the systemfor its nuclear transmutation, i.e., the inefficient way of action.

The physical sense of the dynamic harmonization principle can bereduced to the following. The evolutionary synthesis using an optimal exter-nal dominating disturbance (optimal driver) is all about initiating the proper

2Strictly speaking, not “any” set but that whose elements have a finite inertness (whichis small for the dominating disturbance) and can interact through establishing the linksof some physical nature and changing the intensity of those links.


41/784


motion of the ensemble of interacting source elements (particles) into a newstate in terms of both energy and topology, and, accordingly, to a new re-quired structure, whose motion will be along the steepest descent path, with

minimization of energy or another more general functional spent during the transition from the initial to the final state .

In the general case, we are talking about a new approach towards thesynthesis of multiparticle multilinked stable systems or structures of anyphysical nature. The distinctive feature of this new approach is the thesisthat, in the Nature, the synthesis of a system or the self-organization of its structure is always a self-consistent collective response of elements inthe source ensemble to the common dominating force which disturbs their

state of rest or a nonaccelerated motion in the system’s eigenfunction space.The common dominating disturbance coherently transfers the momentum

pD of the unidirectional motion in the phase space to all elements of theensemble, the momentum being satisfied the condition

| pD| | pT max|, (2.12)

where | pT max| is the maximum absolute value of the momentum for the

proper (uncoordinated) thermal motion of any element of the ensemble inthe same phase space over the whole period of transition from the initial state(before the common dominating disturbance appeared) into the steady finalstate.

A fundamental distinctive feature of the proposed new approach to-ward the synthesis is the search for and the selection of such a mechanism of initiating the self-sustaining and self-consistent process using the criterionof optimality of the process of transition of the dynamic system (ensem-

ble of interacting particles ) from the initial state/configuration into a newstate/configuration being “energy-efficient” not only at the final point, but also integrally over the whole duration of the transient process .

The second b

controlled nucleosynthesis

Documents