Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Chemonuclear Transmutation and Noble Metal Synthesis

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that nuclear fusion and transmutation rates in metallic hydride–electron donor mixtures are multiplied by factors of 10^20 to 10^46 by a chemical-potential boost at 460 K, producing 23.8 MeV alpha particles that drive casc

desk verdict The paper's enhancement formula is asserted, not derived, and every claimed enhancement (10^20 to 10^110) is just exp(Δφ*/kBT) at 460 K; the new applications to waste and noble-metal transmutation don't rescue it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17238 v1 pith:YM5LKQ6P submitted 2026-07-19 nucl-th cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hidetsugu Ikegami , Masako Ikegami This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords chemonuclearreactionmetallichydrogenfusionenhancementalpha-inducedtransmutationnoblemetalsynthesisradioactivewastechemicalpotentiallow-energynuclearreactions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that in a mixture of a metal hydride and an electron-donating metal, hydrogen becomes a metallic liquid whose chemical potential changes so drastically that nuclear fusion rates are multiplied by factors of 10^20 to 10^46 at 460 K. The author claims this 'chemonuclear' enhancement is a thermodynamic effect, not a plasma effect, and that the resulting 23.8 MeV alpha particles drive cascade reactions that transmute elements, disintegrate radioactive waste such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, and convert bismuth, lead, thallium, and mercury into gold and the platinum-group metals. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, the claim implies usable fusion energy and waste transmutation in a laboratory beaker rather than a reactor core, plus a practical route to noble-metal synthesis. The entire argument rests on treating an electron-volt-scale shift in chemical potential as an exponential multiplier on the quantum tunneling rate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'chemonuclear reaction': a nuclear reaction whose rate is multiplied by an equilibrium constant K built from the Gibbs free energy of the surrounding atomic system, K = exp(-ΔGr/kBT). The key identity is Eq. (5), which converts a change in chemical potential, estimated from Pauling electronegativities via -ΔGf = 2.5χ (Eq. 8), into a multiplicative enhancement of the nuclear cross section. This factor is applied at T=460 K, the melting point of metallic lithium and the operating temperature of the proposed mixtures, turning an eV-scale chemical potential difference into enhancement factors of 10^20 to 10^46. It is this single expression, carried through every reactio

What would settle it

A controlled experiment measuring the D-D fusion rate in a deuterided nickel–lithium nanopowder mixture at 460 K, with a calibrated deuterium loading and a detector for 23.8 MeV alphas or their neutron/proton signatures, would settle it: the predicted rate is 10^20 times the Gamow rate, so even a modest excess (or its absence) is unambiguous. Alternatively, measuring the Ni-62 fraction in the fuel after a 116-hour run — the paper predicts essentially all nickel isotopes converge to Ni-62 — would confirm or refute the central isotope-shift claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions in metallic hydride–electron donor mixtures are accelerated by a thermodynamic factor K = exp(-ΔGr/kBT) ~ exp(Δϕ*_r/kBT), where Δϕ*_r is the change in chemical potential between reactants and products (estimated from electronegativity and formation energies). Applying this factor at T=460 K to the Gamow fusion cross section yields enhancement factors of 10^20–10^30 for D2-D2 fusion and 10^30–10^46 for D3-D3 fusion, producing alpha particles with 23.8 MeV kinetic energy. These alphas then drive an 'enhanced cascade chemonuclear reaction': alpha capture transmutes calcium to titanium to chromium, strontium to zirconium to m

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a chemical-potential change of a few electron-volts in a metallic liquid exponentially multiplies the nuclear fusion rate, with no derivation given; without that step, the claimed enhancement factors vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • D-D and D-T fusion in hydride–electron-donor mixtures at 460 K would produce intense 23.8 MeV alpha fluxes without a plasma or high-voltage accelerator.
  • Alpha-induced cascade reactions would transmute calcium, strontium, and cesium into stable or short-lived isotopes, offering a path to radioactive waste vanishment.
  • Nickel nanopowder in such a system would transmute nearly all Ni isotopes to nickel-62 via (α,2p) reactions, a signature the paper claims was observed in a 116-hour run.
  • Trans-gold elements (Bi, Tl, Pb, Hg) would be converted into gold and platinum-group metals via stimulated alpha-cluster emission, with log K up to ~110.
  • Beta decay of 90Sr and 137Cs would be accelerated by the same mechanism, with enhancement factors large enough that decay is limited only by solubility.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Eq. (5) were validated for one reaction, the same formalism would predict systematic enhancements for many other nuclear reactions in metal–hydrogen systems, making it a testable general principle rather than a single-effect claim.
  • The mechanism implies a strong temperature sensitivity: increasing T from 300 K to 460 K reduces log K by roughly a factor of 460/300 ≈ 1.5, so experiments at different temperatures could discriminate the thermodynamic-boost model from other enhancement mechanisms.
  • A practical extension the paper leaves implicit is using the same alpha-flux system to breed fissile or medical isotopes, since the cascade reactions are generic alpha-capture chains.
  • The claimed isotope distributions (e.g., nickel-62 enrichment, chromium-central fission peaks) are clean diagnostics that could be checked against existing mass-spectroscopy or energy-dispersive data from metal–hydrogen experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in 'metallike hydride–electron donor mixtures' at T=460 K, a chemical-potential change Δφ* of a few eV enhances nuclear fusion and many other nuclear processes by factors exp(Δφ*/kBT) up to 10^110. It applies this formula to D-D and D3-D3 fusion, α-capture cascades on Ca, Sr, Cs, radioactive waste disintegration, noble-metal synthesis from trans-gold nuclei, and even pion production. The quantitative input is Eq. (5), together with Eq. (8) relating formation Gibbs energy to Pauling electronegativity and Table 2.1 of φ* values. The paper compares qualitative isotopic shifts with experiments attributed to Iwamura et al., Levi/Bexell–Hall, and Mizuno.

Significance. If correct, these claims would overturn standard nuclear reaction theory and have enormous practical implications for energy, waste management, and element synthesis. The manuscript has the potential strength of engaging experimental anomalies and attempting to unify them under one formula, and it makes explicit numerical predictions (logK values) that are falsifiable in principle. However, the central enhancement formula is not derived, the key parameters are not independently fixed, and the predictions reduce to exponentials of chosen chemical potential differences. The paper is not self-contained: refs 7–15, which are said to contain the derivation, are not publicly available in verifiable form. The result is not at the level of evidence required for a claim of this magnitude.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (5)] K=exp(-ΔGr/kBT)~exp(Δφ*/kBT) is the sole mechanism for every claimed enhancement in the paper. No derivation is provided in this manuscript; the text refers to 'Chapter 1' and refs 7–15, but those are not publicly available. The numerical claims are arithmetic consequences of the input: at T=460 K, kBT=0.0397 eV, so Δφ*=3.85 eV gives log10K≈42, Δφ*=2.49 eV gives log10K≈27, etc. Standard electron screening in Eq. (2) modifies the Gamow factor by an energy shift of order meV and cannot produce an exponential of eV/kBT. This is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Eq. (8), Table 2.1, Eqs. (72)–(80)] Eq. (8), -ΔG_f=2.5χ, is asserted with no derivation; the coefficient 2.5 is a free parameter. The φ* values in Table 2.1 come from alloy/implantation data, not from nuclear reaction coordinates. Table 2.1 lists φ*(O) as '/', yet Eqs. (72), (79), (94), (101) use φ*(O)=8.50 eV with no source. Aqueous-ion ΔG_f values are also used for liquid-metal ions (e.g., Eq. (13) for Ti2+_liq) without justification. Because logK is linear in these parameters, different choices change the predictions by tens of orders of magnitude.
  3. [§2.3, Eqs. (34)–(38)] The α-capture cross section on Ni is claimed to be ≥1.5 MeV·b and then enhanced by K=10^4.6 (460 K) and 10^7.1 (300 K), giving 6×10^4 and 1.8×10^7 MeV·b. These integrated cross sections violate unitarity: a GDR with Γ~5 MeV cannot have an integrated strength of GeV·b scale. The enhancement factor cannot be applied multiplicatively to a cross section without considering unitarity. This undermines the Ni→62Ni claim in Table 2.2.
  4. [§2.5, Eqs. (71)–(89)] Reactions such as 209Bi+α→197Ir+16O are assigned logK~109 based on φ* differences. No nuclear-structure calculation of α-cluster formation, transition matrix elements, or barrier penetrability is given. The 'line-up α-cluster', 'quasi-C atom' and 'ultradense nuclear complex' are introduced as invented entities without a quantitative model. These entities are essential to the claimed mechanism, and in their absence the numerical enhancements are unsupported.
  5. [§2.6, Eqs. (132)–(134)] The reaction 7Li→7Be2++π−+e−A is assigned logK=58 from Eq. (5). The Q-value of this process is about -140 MeV; an eV-scale chemical potential cannot overcome this threshold. The printed expression log[exp(-Δφ*/kBT)] would be negative for positive Δφ*, so the sign is wrong. The application of the same Boltzmann factor to pion emission is not derived and is inconsistent with energy conservation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (134)] logK=log[exp(-Δφ*_r/kBT)] with Δφ*_r=5.29 eV should be negative; the reported +58 is a sign error. This may be a typo, but it appears in a central formula.
  2. [Eqs. (35), (39)] Notation such as 'ANi+α→ A+4Zn2+' is garbled; use proper superscripts for mass numbers.
  3. [References 8–15, 29] Reference 29 is cited in the text as 'Bexell and Hall' but the reference list gives Levi et al.; please correct and provide full bibliographic details. Refs 8–15 are incomplete ('Ibid.' without titles).
  4. [Table 2.1] Table 2.1 omits φ* for O, F, Cl, etc., but later text uses φ*(O)=8.50 without a source; add the missing data.
  5. [General] Please check the spelling of 'Pauling' electronegativity; the text should be consistent.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

All claimed enhancement factors are exponentials of chemical-potential inputs, with Eq. (5) itself imported from a self-citation chain; the noble-metal synthesis prediction uses an unlisted phi*(O)=8.50 eV.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1, Eq. (5)]
    "K=exp[−ΔGr/kBT]∼exp[Δϕ∗r/kBT] (5) where K corresponds to the equilibrium constant of the atomic fusion reaction united with the nuclear fusion."

    The enhancement factor is defined as the exponential of the chemical-potential difference. Every logK value in the paper (e.g., logK=42 from Δϕ*=3.85 eV, logK=109 from 9.9 eV) is just Δϕ*/(kBT ln10) at T=460 K. Thus the 'predicted' enhancements are not independent results; they are the input chemical potentials re-expressed as K by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2.1, before Eq. (5); Section 2.1 bullet 3]
    "The reaction cross section of Eq. (2) is effectively magnified by the enhancement factor [7-15], as detailed in Chapter 1. ... The colliding Li atoms collapse alongside quasi-C atom formation, resulting in a sharp reduction in their atomic volume by a factor of 0.065 [12]. ... (see Eq. (2) in [12])."

    The central premise — that nuclear fusion cross sections are multiplied by exp(Δϕ*/kBT) — is not derived in this paper. It is asserted on the basis of refs. [7-15], all by the present authors (including unpublished 'Ibid.' reports). The quasi-C atom/ultradense complex mechanism that connects the chemical potential to the Coulomb barrier is similarly imported from [12]. The quantitative claims therefore rest on a load-bearing self-citation chain rather than on an independent derivation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5, Eq. (72)]
    "−ΔGr(Ir4+ +O2−)>Δϕ∗r(Ir+O) = ϕ∗(Ir)+ϕ ∗(O)−ϕ ∗(Bi)=5.55+8.50−4.15=9.9 eV ... The reaction enhancement is logK∼109 at T=460 K."

    Table 2.1 lists ϕ*(O) as '/' (no data), yet Eq. (72) and later equations use ϕ*(O)=8.50 eV. The advertised logK≈109 is simply the exponential of this unlisted 8.50 eV input. The noble-metal synthesis prediction is therefore not derived from the stated data; it is manufactured by an extra, unsubstantiated parameter.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim — D2-D2 and D3-D3 chemonuclear fusion enhanced by 10^20–10^46, producing 23.8 MeV He ions — comes entirely from Eq. (5), K≈exp(Δϕ*/kBT). That equation is not derived in the manuscript; it is attributed to refs. [7-15], which are the authors' own prior work, and to 'Chapter 1' of the same book manuscript. The subsequent logK numbers (4, 24, 27, 42, 87, 109, 110, etc.) are the literal exponentials of tabulated chemical-potential differences, so they reduce by construction to the input Δϕ* values. In the noble-metal section the reduction is even more direct: Table 2.1 marks ϕ*(O) as unavailable, but the paper uses 8.50 eV to obtain logK≈109. There are external experimental citations (Iwamura, Mizuno, Levi et al.), but they are used as post-hoc consistency checks; they do not provide an independent derivation of Eq. (5), and the same formula is the only source of the predicted rates. The derivation chain is therefore partially circular: the result is forced by a self-citation chain and by the definition of K. A score of 10 would be too harsh because the chemical-potential inputs are drawn from alloy/electronegativity data and some external transmutation observations are cited; the circularity is in the load-bearing enhancement formula and in one unlisted input, not in the entire empirical base.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends on an unmotivated exponential (Eq. 5) plus empirical alloy chemical potentials. There are no free parameters in the traditional sense, but the theory is unfalsifiable because the input chemical potential values and the exponent structure completely determine the claimed enhancements. The invented entities (quasi-C atom, ultradense complex, line-up alpha clusters) have no external evidence and are introduced to explain the unexplained.

free parameters (3)
  • Coefficient 2.5 in Eq. (8) = 2.5 eV per electronegativity unit
    Empirical correlation -ΔG_f = 2.5χ used to assign formation energies in Table 2.1, which feed into every enhancement factor.
  • Chemical potentials φ* in Table 2.1 = Multiple eV values
    Empirical alloy data; adopted without uncertainty; their use as nuclear rate exponents is the core assumption of the paper.
  • S-factors for 11B(α,n)/(α,p) = ~10^-8 b
    Eqs. (55)-(56) estimate S(α,n) and S(α,p) from 9Be(α,n) data; these are standard astrophysical factors and do not drive the enhancement claim.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (5): K = exp(Δϕ*/kBT) multiplies the nuclear fusion cross section
    Central assertion; no derivation from statistical mechanics or nuclear physics; all enhancement factors follow from it.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (8): -ΔG_f = 2.5χ (Pauling electronegativity)
    Empirical correlation treated as an exact law; generates the ΔG_f values used in K.
  • ad hoc to paper Coherent D2-D2 and D3-D3 fusion in metallic deuteride liquids
    Assumed in the Abstract and §2.2; no microphysical model is given for a four-body coherent fusion.
  • domain assumption Alpha particles excite GDR states in Ni/Pd and trigger (α,2p) and fission with enhanced cross-sections
    §2.2-2.3; standard GDR physics is used, but the claimed giant cross-section enhancement (Eq. 38) is unsupported.
  • domain assumption Electron wavefunctions adiabatically follow nuclear motion during 0.1c collisions
    §2.1 item 1; the adiabatic assumption is applied to fast nuclear rearrangements, which is questionable.
invented entities (3)
  • quasi-C atom
    purpose: Intermediary united atom in 7Li-7Li fusion
    §2.1 item 3; no direct experimental detection is provided.
  • ultradense nuclear complex
    purpose: Dense nuclear state formed inside quasi-C atom
    §2.1 item 3; density 3×10^14 kg/m^3 is asserted without measurement.
  • line-up α-cluster (3α/4α)
    purpose: Coherent alpha cluster emitted in transmutation, wavefunction identical to 12C/16O
    §2.5; no evidence for coherence or identical wavefunctions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemonuclear Transmutation and Noble Metal Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YM5LKQ6P

@misc{pith2026260717238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemonuclear Transmutation and Noble Metal Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YM5LKQ6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17238}
}
read the original abstract

In the system of metallike hydride-electron donor mixtures, adsorbed hydrogen atoms are transformed into metallic states and alloyed. Dense itinerary s-electrons supplied by the electron donor cause a drop in the melting point of metallic hydrogen. As a result, this system reveals thermodynamical liquid activity. The coherent D2-D2 fusion and the D3-D3 chemonuclear fusion are enhanced with factors of 20 to 30 and 30 to 46 figures of magnitude respectively at T=460 K, hence the production of intense He ions of 23.8 MeV kinetic energy. The ions or alpha-particles induce enhanced cascade chemonuclear reactions towards diverse and useful element synthesis. This phenomenon is in the nature of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis that takes place in an inhomogeneous universe. An application of the alpha-induced chemonuclear reaction - i.e., the transmutation of 90Sr and 137Cs - is prescribed in this chapter. This system of metallike hydride-electron donor mixtures raises the possibility of radioactive waste vanishment. Stimulated by alpha-particle irradiation, trans-gold nuclei undergo exothermic alpha-cluster emissions, producing coherently line-up alpha-clusters. In the chemonuclear D-D fusion, the 4alpha-cluster reveals the thermodynamical activity of oxygen atoms. In the hydrogen-Ni nanopowder-Li mixtures, dispersively charged trans-gold atoms undergo enhanced chemonuclear alpha-cluster emissions, hence the mass synthesis of noble metals. The case of chemonuclear pion production is presented at the end of this chapter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17238 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J Stat Phys 17:357–370

    Jancovici B (1977) Pair correlation function in a dense plasma and pycnonuclear reactions in stars. J Stat Phys 17:357–370

    1977

  2. [2]

    Publ Astron Soc Jpn 48:613– 618

    Ichimaru S, Kitamura H (1996) Thermodynamic enhancement of nu- clear reactions in dense stellar matter. Publ Astron Soc Jpn 48:613– 618

    1996

  3. [3]

    Phys Lett A 266:167– 172

    Ichimaru S (2000) Radiative proton-capture reactions of high-Z nu- clei in the sun and in liquid–metallic hydrogen. Phys Lett A 266:167– 172

    2000

  4. [4]

    Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 40:283–334

    Caughlan GR, Fowler W A (1988) Thermonuclear reaction rates V . Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 40:283–334

    1988

  5. [5]

    Ann Rev Astron Astrophys 5:523–570 62

    Fowler W A, Caughlan GR, Zimmerman BA (1967) Thermonuclear reaction rates. Ann Rev Astron Astrophys 5:523–570 62

    1967

  6. [6]

    Astrophys J 130:916–940

    Cameron AGW (1959) Pycnonuclear reactions and nova explosions. Astrophys J 130:916–940

    1959

  7. [7]

    Jpn J Appl Phys 40:6092–6098

    Ikegami H (2001) Buffer energy nuclear fusion. Jpn J Appl Phys 40:6092–6098

    2001

  8. [8]

    Bulletin of Institute of Chemistry, Uppsala University

    Ikegami H, Pettersson R (2002) Evidence of enhanced nonthermal nuclear fusion. Bulletin of Institute of Chemistry, Uppsala University

    2002

Show all 27 references
  1. [11]

    Prog Theo Phys Suppl 154:251–260

    Ikegami H, Pettersson R, Einarsson L (2004) Enormous entropy en- hancement revealed in linked nuclear and atomic Li + D fusion in metallic Li liquid. Prog Theo Phys Suppl 154:251–260

    2004

  2. [12]

    Revision of the Swedish Energy Agency Document ER2006:42, Tokyo, pp 1-1–1-22

    Ikegami H, Watanabe T, Petterson R, Fransson K (2007) Ultradense nuclear fusion in metallic lithium liquid. Revision of the Swedish Energy Agency Document ER2006:42, Tokyo, pp 1-1–1-22

    2007

  3. [16]

    J Less-Common Metals 46:271–284

    Boom R, de Boer FR, Miedema AR (1976) On the heat of mixing of liquid alloys–II. J Less-Common Metals 46:271–284

    1976

  4. [17]

    Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Pauling L (1960) The nature of the chemical bond, 3rd edn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    1960

  5. [18]

    Wiley, Bris- bane

    Aylward G, Findlay T (1998) SI chemical data, 3rd edn. Wiley, Bris- bane

    1998

  6. [19]

    Phys Rev Lett 39:1671–1674

    Kaufmann EN, Vianden R, Chelikowsky JR, Phillips, JC (1977) Ex- tension of equilibrium formation criteria to metastable microalloys. Phys Rev Lett 39:1671–1674

    1977

  7. [20]

    J Less- Common Metals 32:117–136

    Miedema AR (1973) The electronegativity parameter for transition metals: heat of formation and charge transfer in alloys. J Less- Common Metals 32:117–136

    1973

  8. [21]

    J Chem Phys 39:2808–2812

    Widom B (1963) Some topics in the theory of fluids. J Chem Phys 39:2808–2812

    1963

  9. [22]

    Wiley, Chichester 63

    Kondepudi D, Prigogine I (1998) Modern thermodynamics. Wiley, Chichester 63

    1998

  10. [23]

    Nucl Phys A 656:3–183

    Angulo C et al (1999) A compilation of charged-particle induced thermonuclear reaction rates. Nucl Phys A 656:3–183

    1999

  11. [24]

    Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Fukai Y (2005) The metal–hydrogen system: basic bulk properties, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    2005

  12. [25]

    Adv in Phys 34:263–326

    Fukai Y , Sugimoto H (1985) Diffusion of hydrogen in metals. Adv in Phys 34:263–326

    1985

  13. [26]

    J Condensed Matter Nucl Sci:10:63–71

    Iwamura Y , Itoh T, Yamazaki N, Yonemura H, Fukutani K, Sekiba D (2013) Recent advances in deuterium permeation transmutation experiments. J Condensed Matter Nucl Sci:10:63–71

    2013

  14. [27]

    Iwamura Y , Sakano M, Itoh T (2002) Elemental analysis of Pd com- plexes: effects of D2 gas permeation. Jpn J. Appl Phys 41:4642–4650

    2002

  15. [28]

    Phys Rev Lett 13:26–29

    Ikegami H, Emery GT (1964) Evidence for the excitation of two- particle, one-hole configurations in the capture of thermal neutrons. Phys Rev Lett 13:26–29

    1964

  16. [29]

    Bologna, Uppsala and Stock- holm

    Levi G, Foschiet E, H ¨oistad B, Pettersson R, Tegn ´er L, Ess ´en H (2014) Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor de- vice and of isotopic changes in the fuel. Bologna, Uppsala and Stock- holm

    2014

  17. [30]

    Phys Rev 128:700–707

    Hicks HG, Levy HB, Nervik WE, Stevenson PC, Niday JB, Arm- strong JC (1962) Further radiochemical studies of fission of theU236∗ compound nucleus. Phys Rev 128:700–707

    1962

  18. [31]

    In: Proceedings for the symposium on ad- vanced research in energy technology 2000, Hokkaido University

    Mizuno T (2000) Experimental confirmation of the nuclear reaction at lower temperature. In: Proceedings for the symposium on ad- vanced research in energy technology 2000, Hokkaido University. pp 95–106

    2000

  19. [32]

    Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 11:127–128 64

    Gove NB, Wapstra AH (1972) The 1971 atomic mass evaluation in five parts. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 11:127–128 64

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.