Too many points to address. Perhaps, the Celani-Srivastava presentation at the March 22 CERN LENR Colloquium will discuss them, since Srivastava is a proponent.
Jones Beene wrote: > Well - all of us on vortex would love to be able to focus on a consistent > theory that works. W-L theory seems to be a continuing waste of our time > for > understanding Ni-H - for many major reasons (I have combined Ed Storms' > objections with my own here): > > 1) No neutron activation seen - neutron activation could not be avoided if > the theory was valid. > > 2) The technology and literature on "ultra low temperature" neutrons is > well > known and bears no resemblance to the Larsen invented species: "ultra low > momentum" neutrons. How could the two be different? > > 3) Energy cannot spontaneously concentrate on an electron to levels of in > excess of 760,000 eV to provide a minimal basis for a neutron. (Second > Law) > > 4) Electrons at moderate temperatures cannot store energy beyond the > energy > levels available in a chemical systems, far below 0.76 MeV. > > 5). Energetic electrons at less than relativistic energies do not react > with > protons to make neutrons. (Conflict with observation and violation of > conservation of spin) > > 6). Neutron addition to nickel produces well-known nuclear products that > are > not observed. (Conflict with copious observation) > > 7). Neutron addition requires emission of gammas of known energy, which is > not observed. (Conflict with experience and theory) > > 8). Radioactive transmutation products should be present and are not seen. > > These are all major objections, and there are dozens more minor > objections. > Any one of these will invalidate W-L. > > 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? > > No problem there. This is QM - and energy can be "borrowed in advance of > being repaid", as they say. But there are no neutrons. That much is > completely clear. > > What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts > that are not correct? > > First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas > during > operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing. > Rossi > says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data. > > If we knew the spectrum, and the net energy of gammas relative to the > thermal output - there is little doubt that a workable theory could be > framed. > > But it will not include anything from W-L - unless neutron activation is > documented. > > Jones >
