Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
At 08:57 PM 11/20/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Absolutely! Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a Proton to form a Neutron and a Neutrino). has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular fusion. Actually, it's about 10 times higher. And it's an *energy* barrier, just like fusion, too. WL like to call it a heavy electron to obscure the fact that you have to concentrate 780 MeV of energy in a single atomic site to produce electron capture. Since this reaction is endothermic, there is no possibility of tunneling through it; the energy has to be supplied. In the case of d-d fusion, reaction probability becomes useful below 100 keV, because that reaction is exothermic, and so tunneling is possible. The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen. But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an effective electron mass. Are you saying that WL -- http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf Introduction, First Column, up to Eqn (3) -- and Reference 1 -- are wrong? (I don't have access to Ref 1 or a similar well known textbook). I agree that (l-) + (p+) = (n) + (vl) (WL 1) is probably an approximation of a more detailed quark interaction. (And that the electron neutrino should possibly be an electron anti-neutrino). It's curious that Hagelstein http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.3810v1.pdf challenges WL's effective mass -- but does not the underlying equations (1) to (3). NASA Langley (Bushnell et al) are strongly in favour of WL. I don't see the comparison to muon-catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed fusion the muon replaces an electron in hydrogen, and since its average distance from the nucleus is much smaller, it shields the charge of the nucleus more effectively, allowing closer approach between nuclei to improve the probability for fusion. WL propose that the heavy (energetic) electron is captured by the nucleus (proton), so the resulting neutron is captured by another nucleus. It's a rather different process. I'm not sure that this is the same scenario at all. In muon-catalyzed fusion the muon escapes. But all this is beyond my competence ... Quarks were only proposed when I was an undergraduate, and certainly hadn't made it into the curriculum. All I was doing was summarizing WL (1) to (3), and saying that yes, it could be relevant.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Are you saying that WL -- http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf Introduction, First Column, up to Eqn (3) -- and Reference 1 -- are wrong? (I don't have access to Ref 1 or a similar well known textbook). They are highly misleading on the question of energy requirements. When they say an electron wanders into a nucleus can be captured, this is not descriptive of electron capture by a proton. Electron capture can be exothermic for nuclei with an excess of protons, but it is highly endothermic for protons. You need 780 MeV to get electron capture by a proton. They are highly misleading when they say Note the absence of a Coulomb barrier to such a weak interaction nuclear process. In fact, a strong Coulomb attraction which can exist between an electron and a nucleus helps the nuclear transmutation Eq.(2) proceed. That falls just short (or maybe just beyond) saying that their proposed electron capture by a proton is more energetically favored than deuteron fusion because of the absence of a Coulomb barrier. But in fact electron capture by a proton takes about 10 times more energy than deuteron fusion. For electron capture, you need the full 780 MeV. The energy for fusion is less definite, because it takes place by tunneling. The higher the energy, the higher the probability for a reaction. But the sort of energy aimed for in hot fusion reactors is about 100 keV, but reactions are possible at lower energies. As for the muon part, I thought you were referring to muon-catalyzed fusion when you mentioned them. WL refer to muon capture by protons, which is analogous to their proposed electron capture, except that it is *exothermic*. The idea of requiring a higher electron mass is, I think, their way of obscuring the requirement for an energetic electron -- a very energetic electron. I wouldn't be surprised if these papers are written for the benefit of a very naive audience, to make their completely implausible first step look plausible to potential investors in their Lattice Energy company. It's certainly true that no mainstream nuclear physicist would take the theory seriously, and would not read past that first highly misleading section to get to their lego-like reaction chains. I agree that (l-) + (p+) = (n) + (vl) (WL 1) is probably an approximation of a more detailed quark interaction. (And that the electron neutrino should possibly be an electron anti-neutrino). They got the neutrino right. NASA Langley (Bushnell et al) are strongly in favour of WL. Bushnell has an impressive cv, but his background is in mechanical engineering, and he does not have a phd. His recent ev-world interview, in which he got most of his facts wrong, and demonstrated confusion about the Widom-Larsen theory (if you can call it that), was sadly embarrassing. Here are a few examples: Bushnell says WL involves only weak interactions, but in fact, strong interactions (neutron capture) play an essential role, and while the process involves weak interactions, the energy still comes from strong interactions. He talks about ultra-weak neutrons when WL refer to ultra low momentum neutrons. He says the energy comes from beta decay, but in the H-Ni system it comes mostly from neutron capture (or the consequent gamma rays). He says the Rossi heat generation went on for days, when not a single one lasted even one day, and the public ones for only hours. He says Rossi attributed the energy to WL, when in fact Rossi explicitly says it’s not WL. And so on. It’s sad really. NASA’s been talking about WL since at least 2007, and have been interested in some way in cold fusion from the beginning, and have nothing to show for it. So an organization that can go from primitive rockets to walking on the moon in less than a decade, can’t seem to make any progress on a desktop experiment introduced 22 years ago.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
(I decided to bypass the Joshua Cude discussion, to get back to the patent itself) The text of the application is at http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.OS=DN/20110255645RS=DN/20110255645A Inventors:Zawodny; Joseph M.; (Poquoson, VA) Assignee:USA as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington DC Serial No.:070552 Series Code:13 Filed:March 24, 2011 and it does, indeed build on WL (whose own patent they include by reference). Abstract : A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure. See A. Windom (sp?) et al. Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface, European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. Unfortunately, such heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding, this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device. [0020] As mentioned above, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. discloses the general relationship link between surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) on a metal hydride's surface and the resulting heavy electron production at random regions or patches of the surface. Accordingly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 is incorporated by reference in its entirety. [0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation. The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
Joshua, If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture? Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Absolutely! Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a Proton to form a Neutron and a Neutrino). has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular fusion. Actually, it's about 10 times higher. And it's an *energy* barrier, just like fusion, too. WL like to call it a heavy electron to obscure the fact that you have to concentrate 780 MeV of energy in a single atomic site to produce electron capture. Since this reaction is endothermic, there is no possibility of tunneling through it; the energy has to be supplied. In the case of d-d fusion, reaction probability becomes useful below 100 keV, because that reaction is exothermic, and so tunneling is possible. The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen. But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an effective electron mass. I don't see the comparison to muon-catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed fusion the muon replaces an electron in hydrogen, and since its average distance from the nucleus is much smaller, it shields the charge of the nucleus more effectively, allowing closer approach between nuclei to improve the probability for fusion. WL propose that the heavy (energetic) electron is captured by the nucleus (proton), so the resulting neutron is captured by another nucleus. It's a rather different process.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Joshua, If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture? Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions. If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture. To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence for a WL-type scenario. Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization, but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive. If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory, I would be interested to see it.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Joshua, If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture? [...] If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory, I would be interested to see it. Fair enough. Lewis Larsen's site identifies a number of conditions under which transmutations have been observed. His site is at: http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen I am not sure what lab costs are nowadays, but I can't see why university labs couldn't perform some of these experiments. If Larsen is correct, some new physics is hiding in plain sight.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error and took the intended point anyway. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Joshua, If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture? Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions. If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture. To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence for a WL-type scenario. Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization, but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive. If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory, I would be interested to see it.
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
I did recognize, but even so, I am not sure what you mean by energy needed for capture. For example, in large nuclei, the required energy is 0, since k-capture doesn't need to be induced or stimulated. 2011/11/21 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error and took the intended point anyway. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Joshua, If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture? Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions. If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture. To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence for a WL-type scenario. Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization, but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive. If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory, I would be interested to see it. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
I sed: IMO, if Rossi feels he has successfully pocketed a few select corporations who believe in his technology he would give a fart about trying to appease the scientific establishment. Jed sed: He never did a fart about that. If he has customers, all the more reason to ignore scientists. Argh! I meant: wouldn't have given a fart! about what the scientific establishment thought of him. Wouldn't!!! dyslexia strikes again. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Argh! I meant: wouldn't have given a fart! about what the scientific establishment thought of him. Wouldn't!!! We get it. Everyone knows Rossi has contempt for scientists. I think he exaggerates his contempt. I have a feeling he uses that as an excuse not to do good tests. He does not want to say outright I do not want too much credibility because that will encourage competition but I suspect that is the strategy. Other people, such as Patterson, have used the same strategy. Patterson himself told me this. - Jed
[Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
I do not think this patent application has been posted to Vortex yet: URL: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.OS=DN/20110255645RS=DN/20110255645 United States Patent Application20110255645 Zawodny; Joseph M. October 20, 2011 Method for Producing Heavy Electrons Abstract A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure. Inventors: Zawodny; Joseph M.; (Poquoson, VA) Assignee: USA as represented by the Administrator of NASA I found it on Lewis Larsen's (Lattice Energy LLC) website at: http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen Any opinions on whether this is relevant to any commercial LENR efforts? Thanks, Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
Absolutely! Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a Proton to form a Neutron and a Neutrino). has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular fusion. The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen. But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an effective electron mass. I haven't read the paper yet. - Original Message - Any opinions on whether this is relevant to any commercial LENR efforts?
Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Absolutely! Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a Proton to form a Neutron and a Neutrino). has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular fusion. Actually, it's about 10 times higher. And it's an *energy* barrier, just like fusion, too. WL like to call it a heavy electron to obscure the fact that you have to concentrate 780 MeV of energy in a single atomic site to produce electron capture. Since this reaction is endothermic, there is no possibility of tunneling through it; the energy has to be supplied. In the case of d-d fusion, reaction probability becomes useful below 100 keV, because that reaction is exothermic, and so tunneling is possible. The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen. But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an effective electron mass. I don't see the comparison to muon-catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed fusion the muon replaces an electron in hydrogen, and since its average distance from the nucleus is much smaller, it shields the charge of the nucleus more effectively, allowing closer approach between nuclei to improve the probability for fusion. WL propose that the heavy (energetic) electron is captured by the nucleus (proton), so the resulting neutron is captured by another nucleus. It's a rather different process.
