Some point agains WL by AUL Lomax are ok, but they also are against DD fusion.
gamma are expected in both cases. WL give a strange solution, but DD give none... especially if you take into account Ni+H, W+D,... and also the strange LENR that WL have gathered (ligtnings, rocks breaking, wires explosion, coke factory nitrogen anomaly, japanese arcing in oil, )... So there should be a different mechanism for Ni+H... He4 as explains give no hint on the precise reaction, and DD or WL are solutions. the fact that WL does not give unique answer to the 31Mev average energy, is a reason to keep open to alternatives. It is clear that WL cycles are very various, and their might even be some "no cycle", or soup cooking... Larsen in his slide does not criticize Mac Kubre experiment, on the opposite, he support that his results are better than what he says himself. He seems more to criticize the Error margin that seems to match just too fine the DD theory. the lack of detected neutrons could work with DD->He4, but this branch (probability 1/137 compared to T+n & al) is strange... even more than heavy electrons... good reason to have no strong opinion on any of the two theories. globally it seems that something is missing in each theoretical approach. we should stay openmind. the neutrons, and weak interaction seems an interesting direction... WL theory have weaknesses. Heavy electrons, are know phenomenons, but in that context it is hard to swallow naively... Naively isotropic screening of gamma seems strange, but maybe is ther something we miss, or that even the theorist missed. maybe is there a similar theory, waiting to be found... more classic DD fusion also have problems, but could be accepted when we discover some new facts, like done for WL with the heavy electron idea. the branch ratio, the Ni+H success raise problems... what we know from the experiments : - reaction Pd+D happens, but also less Pd+H, strong Ni+H, W+D... - clear energy production, with nuclear source (or at least more than chemical) - nearly no neutrons or ultra slow neutrons - nearly no gamma at level coherent with power - transmutation of heavy nuclei, letting hypothesis of nucleon absorption by heavy nucleus - He4 correlated to power, coherent with DD or WL phenomenons this let room for many solutions, and WL is imperfectly filing some holes. DD impertect too. 2012/4/10 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > > >> W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick >> and choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might >> explain a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be >> way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory >> of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It >> is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N >> transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number >> of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another >> target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The >> probability of a second reaction in the "cycle" would be the square of N/T. >> That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero. > > > Can you further explain this calculation? Are you assuming a low flux, > where N/T << 1? You're also thinking that T is large and includes the > Palladium atoms in the lattice? > > >> The intermediate product would be left. If neutrons are being created in >> significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not >> observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this. > > > I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing > observable in addition to gamma radiation. Just to make sure I understand > your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are > known from previous experience with fusion? I have no reason to doubt this > approach, I'm just trying to understand. What are the other > missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays? > > >> Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is >> searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory >> *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis. > > > I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not > too long ago, but point taken. > > >> There is an absence of clear experimental prediction. > > > A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking. > > >> This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to >> suggest avenues for exploration. > > > Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a > result, but we should strive for better. > > Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron > flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong > evidence against it. For there to be sufficient flux to have a "carbon > cycle" and so on would entail effects that aren't seen experimentally, such > as high levels of heat. You don't see a strict requirement for a D+D -> He > reaction, but you see compelling reason not to give serious consideration > to alpha decay. > > Regarding transmutations, such as that of Barium into Samarium reported in > Iwamura et al. [1], you either find evidence for them to be unreliable and > ultimately untenable, or, alternatively, something that arises by a process > other than neutron flux. > > Have I misunderstood anything? > > Eric > > [1] Iwamura et al., "Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions > Induced by D2Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes," > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cmns...11..339I (I'm having trouble > finding the lenr-canr.org version, but I have a copy of the PDF if you'd > like one) > >
