2012/2/19 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You can tell that WL theory does not fit experiments since it does >> not predict the formation of He4 within a few hours of experiment. > > > W&L try to explain this discrepancy, don't they? >
yes they use the Beta-Delayed Alpha decay, with the argument that beta- decay is blocked because of too many electrons around, pauli-excluding alpha electrons... this decay is well known, so no new physics involved... it can be considered by classic Q physic... now is it true... nb: if on want to make his own opinion, one should read the dozen of key slides (and papers if more courage) start with the index: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcindex-to-concepts-experiments-and-documents-september-14-2009 and follow the links the first to read IMHo is http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009 W-L theory have the characteristic to use many observed phenomenon, and assemble them so they can explain LENR. another key point is that larsen have mane very good documents for evangelization. for that 2 facts, i've never found another more convincing theory. hints welcome. > > > >> Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That >> experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. > > > I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the impression > that W&L have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not looked closely > at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake they are > clearly wrong. > > It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite another > to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. > > - Jed > >
