Horace, You parse comments way too precisely.
I should have said that "your observations raise questions." For instance, a key one is - "The WL math and QM is possibly controversial (e.g. via Hagelstein and Chaudhary), but the logic and common sense in problem definition and conclusions are clearly controversial and not so complex issues." That seems to imply the question - 'Is W-L theory math correct?' -- unless you are already sure there is no baby in the bath water. I do not know. That's why I looked at the simplest classical analogue I can think of - as a cross-check, an imprecise guide. Also, you statement "It would be useful to hear the WL take on why the lack of neutron activation LENR experiments..." sure sounds like question unless you mean for the following statements to be interpreted as a definitive rebuttal. Your counterpoints may all turn out to be totally valid. I'm not able to say. To paraphrase the philosopher, Yogi Berra: "Theoretically, the theoretical and the empirical are the same. Empirically, they're not." BTW, in slide #25 of Celani's latest presentation - http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf -- he states: "About theory, it is growing the interpretation that such phenomena arise because the Weak Force (Larsen-Widom model) instead the previously thought, usual Strong Force. A well know Researchers (A.Takahashi) recently wrote a model were both forces can be active" As for myself, I'm just uncertain. > > On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:11 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: > >> >>> Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html >> >> Lots of good questions, but my example is not ambitious enough to >> answer >> them. I just wanted to see whether classical electrons could >> surmount a >> 780 KeV barrier. As far as missing gammas and neutrons, all I can >> suggest >> is that the magnetic field encircling the ultra-high current >> nanowire is >> gigantic - I am not able to do a QED analysis. > > You must not have read the post. There are no questions, only > assertions. I did not find any question marks. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > > >
