-Original Message-
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 19, 2012 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:35 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
... One needs very many
particles to describe collective effects
of Ni-H, if it has any
use elsewhere.
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
Widom-Srivastava-Larsen have just replied to the paper by Ciuchi, et al,
critical of Widom-Larsen theory -
Erroneous Wave Functions of Ciuchi et al for Collective Modes
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:35 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
... One needs very many
particles to describe collective effects. In the model wave functions of
Ciuchi et al there are no metallic hydrides, there are no cathodes and
there are no chemical batteries. Employing a wave function
Subject: Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:35 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
... One needs very many
particles to describe collective effects. In the model wave functions of
Ciuchi et al there are no metallic hydrides, there are no cathodes and
there are no chemical batteries
Widom-Srivastava-Larsen have just replied to the paper by Ciuchi, et al,
critical of Widom-Larsen theory -
Erroneous Wave Functions of Ciuchi et al for Collective Modes in Neutron
Production on Metallic Hydride Cathodes
A. Widom, Y. N. Srivastava, L. Larsen
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5212
At 09:02 AM 10/2/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates,
which are merely 200x smaller.
That's an error plus it's misleading. They find 300x smaller as a
rate, *using an optimistic value of the mass renormalization factor.*
Essentially,
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Slow neutrons have high capture cross-sections, ultra-low-momentum
neutrons will simply have very high capture cross-sections. They
will be efficient at producing transmutations (neutron activation).
That appears to be incorrect, as a
At 10:09 AM 10/2/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am actually surprised that they found a high neutron rate. I
thought they'd find nothing. Those are conventional nuclear
physicists, as you can see in their publication list.
Read the paper itself. They found that the W-L estimates were high by
a
At 10:27 AM 10/2/2012, Moab Moab wrote:
mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ?
What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ?
No, it took something like fifteen years of steady decay of the
totally skeptical position, with accumulation of evidence and
The following paper:
Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride
Surfaces
S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1, L.
Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1, A. D.
Polosa
It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which
are merely 200x smaller.
2012/10/2 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
The following paper:
Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride
Surfaces
S. Ciuchi
.merely 200x fewer neutrons . but that does present a very strong
objection, no?
Even the guillotine did not provide instant death.
http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php
From: Daniel Rocha
It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates,
I am actually surprised that they found a high neutron rate. I thought
they'd find nothing. Those are conventional nuclear physicists, as you can
see in their publication list.
2012/10/2 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
…merely 200x fewer neutrons … but that does present a “very strong
mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ?
What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ?
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:
The following paper:
Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride
On 2012-10-02 17:27, Moab Moab wrote:
mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ?
What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ?
Not really. To my point of view, this is the result of a personal
quarrel between one of the authors of this paper (the director of the
I wish they wouldn't use Angstrom units. Come on.
I think eq. (10) says R ~= 0.4 * 10^-12. But the text says ...that the
electron should be confined within its Compton radius, which is completely
unrealistic.
Various references say the Compton radius of an electron is more like 2.8 *
10^-15.
So
. With the attention and support
that LENR has had over the past few years, I seriously doubt that the
rebuttal would not be published.Can't wait to read it!
-Mark Iverson
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:WLT
Disclaimer : I'm TOTALLY out of my sphere of competence here.
Most WLT-disprovers bring the electron from infinity (or Mars) and
collide it with the Proton.
But I think they need to look at the naturally occurring Electron
Capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
eg A proton in
Under QM, the position of an election in an atom is stated as a probability
density function. That is, under QM we can only state that an electron has
a certain probability of being any particular location at any time.
Apparently this very ordinary bit of QM doesn't appear in W-L theory. The
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:27 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
Again, they refer to it as an ‘interesting’ phenomenon… are they just being
polite here?
snip
That's what Niels Bohr said when he did not like a paper.
Its interesting!
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:
Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's
(including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to
understand the paper.
I wonder about this. I suspect that people are just
Anderson localizationon cause large concentrations of heavy electrons to
accumulate around imperfections in lattices such as cracks and bumps on
rough surfaces. These concentrations of heavy electrons are what cause the
lowering of the coulomb barrier.
Cheers:Axil
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at
22 matches
Mail list logo
