I believe that W=L theory proposes that LENR is initiated by strong focusing of E-M fields on metal hydride surfaces. I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't activation energy loss be too small to detect in the energy released?
I don't understand Jones Beenes' point. If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino? David Roberson wrote on Mon, 20 Feb 2012: > > I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan of the Widom > Larsen theory. That is not a difficulty as far as I can determine since > my question is mainly an attempt to approach the problem from another > point of view. It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to > figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a > good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products. > There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required > to initialize it. Does it not seem logical to search for the missing > energy in a location which has excess energy? > > The correct LENR theory may already exist in some form, but I have not > detected anything resembling a consensus thus far. What experiments can > be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct? Are there any > ideal tests that would prove a particular theory beyond reasonable doubt? > > Please understand that I am attempting to think outside of the normal box. > Sometimes an alternate approach to problems ignites a fuse. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:49 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory > > > Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all > s it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin. > Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise > ydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons. > From: David Roberson > I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now > nd maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation. > > Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e > o become a N to have to arise out of a non active material? > Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily > onvert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to > arry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is > so > op-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes. > Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish. > Jones > >
