Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas -
Don't nanoscale currents store far more inductive momentum/energy than macro currents do per conduction electron? For example, see - "Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures" - JB Pendry http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf The surface electrons behave as "a low density plasma of very heavy charged particles." Correct me if I am wrong, but I surmise that these high effective mass electrons propagate with extremely high momentum - due to inductive coupling to other neighboring conduction electrons. I believe they appear effectively far more massive in the current flow direction. If so, is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 08:59 AM 4/5/2012, Jones Beene wrote: >>This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a >>slightly derogatory way. >> >>Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very >>convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like >>Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders. >> >>However, there is little or no indication that this information has the >>least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and >> lightning >>- where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do >> occur. >>These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot. >> >>Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent >>experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick >>side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its >>intended purpose. > > Yeah, I've been looking for evidence that W-L theory is more than a > castle in the air, with no foundation. I've been looking in vain. > It's all post-hoc analysis, with ad hoc explanations presented as if > it were established fact. > > I read with interest widom and Larsen's paper on "Absorption of > Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons > on Metallic Hydride Surfaces." That's the rabbit that they pull out > of the hat to explain lack of gamma radiation from metal hydride > LENR. This should actually be relatively easy to validate > experimentally, and they know that it would have some value on its > own, hence they have patented the idea of using these "heavy electron > patches" to absorb gamma radiation. Fine. Demonstrate it. Once upon a > time Larsen was asked by Garwin -- Krivit reported this conversation > -- about experimental evidence for the gamma absorption. "That's > proprietary information," Larsen replied. > > Great. But now that it's patented? > > The slide show is well produced, except it's all gee-whiz, > *explanations* of stuff with no grounding. > > And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems > with W-L theory. > > W and L essentially notice what is fairly obvious: if neutrons can be > formed, LENR will take place. But what kind of LENR? > > So they make up a way that neutrons might be formed, then treat this > as if it were established fact. Okay, that's part of how we form > imaginative hypotheses. But then real science starts, in the effort > to falsify this lovely construct. And I see very little of this. > > W and L do address one obvious problem, the lack of observed gammas, > though they understate it. They say that the expected copious gammas > are not seen. They understate the problem drastically. If neutrons > are formed on the surface of metal hydrides, they will produce > predictable specific frequencies of gamma radiation, and, yes, > copiously. In order to explain away the lack of observation of these > gammas, they have to imagine a really prefect gamma-capture device. > So they make one up. So we now have two rooms built in our castle in the > air. > > This is little or no improvement over open ignorance. At least "I > don't know" is intellectually honest. "I can imagine" is great, as > long as we don't believe what we imagine. Ever. Imagination is useful > when it leads to real creation and real understanding, as > demonstrated by an ability to predict what would otherwise be a > mystery or miracle. Simply creating more "miracles" that aren't > grounded is not what the field of LENR needs. We need far more basic > science, far more real data, far more establishment of controlled > experimental conditions. Theories? We have *way too many.* Storms is > right about that. > > So I'll be posting something here about a very specific piece of > equipment that is needed to do some of this work. I hope that those > with some hands-on experience with lasers will assist us. There is > some very exciting stuff going on. > > So, the third miracle that Widom and Larsen theory involves. > Intermediate products vanish. We obviously have, with LENR, a process > that results in a neutron only rarely. If copious neutrons were > produced, reaction rates would be much higher. The only known ash > that is found in substantial quantity, adequate to explain the heat, > is helium. To get to helium requires, if neutrons are the agent, > multiple reactions, and the intermediates must all be converted to > the final product, helium. That requires a very high reaction rate > for the second transmutation. Yet the second transmutation simply > requires that another neutron encounter the intermediate product. If > the probability of the first reaction is 1/N for any given initial > target, the probability of the second reaction would be on the order > of 1/N itself, so the final product would only appear as 1/N of the > intermediate product. Yet the final product, helium, completely > dominates, the intermediates aren't found (at all, as far as I know, > but there might be traces). > > Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual > experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the PdD > reactions of the Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect. It can only appeal to > those who are satisfied with a speculation that doesn't involve > "fusion," and who are not thinking about the whole body of evidence. > > >
