Depending on which version (in time) of Wiki one happens to get hold-of,
under the "cold fusion" entry - you may or may not find the Szpak et al.
electron-capture model mentioned, and instead there will be this:
"In 2005, Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory that could
explain the experimental results without D-D fusion nor tunneling
through a high Coulomb barrier. Based on mainstream physics, it proposes
that electrons and protons annihilate to form low momentum neutrons,
that these neutrons are absorbed by surrounding atoms, and that these
atoms are transmuted by beta decay. Widom, Larsen, "Ultra Low Momentum
Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces.", [27]
cited by New Energy Times, "Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science Rock the Boat, Part 2", Nov 10, 2005, [28]"
The reason that this Widom/Larsen effort might possibly be the superior
(yet still deficient) verbalization of a similar insight, was suggested
by Robin earlier - but you will also not find that possibility remotely
mentioned by either Mills or the LENR camp.
However, the all important ultra "low momentum neutron" of Widom is
rather easy to shoehorn into the hydrino (deuterino) theory of Mills,
but almost impossible to justify otherwise. Without the low mobility
parameter, neutrons WILL be in evidence - yet they are not. Ask yourself
why not - and you must come back around to Mills.
In terms of 'March Madness' this is a slam-dunk with Mills CQM, but a
cross-court lob otherwise...creating the curious situation that to make
the electron capture theory work at all, the theorist is probably going
to have to break down artificial barriers between two adverse groups,
and ditch professional jealousies, and pay homage to R. Mills.
... or to lighten up this current suggestion <g> ... how about giving
ohmage to Mills? He is equally guilty and cannot be forgiven for
neglecting deuterium, even though everything he has accomplished might
have benefited. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher - all is vanity.
Seriously, if you stand back from the fracas, the obvious key to
understanding the situation here is the identify of transmutation
products: Ruthenium, Rhodium and Silver - all expected to appear in the
nuclear aftermath of the "low momentum neutron" absorption by Pd.
This is not "news" - at all, despite the recent round of attention
showered on the Szpak work - and seeing CF results published in
peer-reviewed journals, and talked about again with much less skepticism
than before. It is a subtle change - but it is there.
Fifteen years ago, the historic Passell Presentation at ICCF5 indicated
that even as far back as 1992 (and even earlier) --- about six weeks
after a Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiment was completed in
Dr. Wolf’s lab, one cathode was found to be inexplicably radioactive,
with a signal-to-noise ratio of ten. Indisputable! yet nearly totally
ignored by the mainstream! The only other way this cathode becomes
radioactive is if someone sticks it in a reactor or beam-line.
Gammas from at least seven radionuclides were unmistakably observed. The
major ones were Ruthenium, Rhodium and Silver. Under these conditions,
the statistical significance of the data is extremely high. There is
simply no known explanation for how palladium can be made radioactive
with these particular isotopes under low voltage electrolysis.
Fast forward 15 years and here we are - with almost zero improvement
over what Passell and Wolf reported in 1992. The names are different,
but the results are actually less - not more - convincing to many
observers than they were then.
But hey ... instead of progress we have wasted at least $500 billion and
15 years on oil-wars, obscene gasoline profits, and thousands of
families who have lost ... oops, let's don't go there.
Let's just hope some sanity returns our nation once we, the enlightened
voters of America, finally decide to dump the Petrocracy and all of
their minions in Congress, and divert billions in oil revenues into
alternative energy in a non-partisan but anti-petroleum NWO.
... how is that for some major op-ed ohmage being pumped into 'current'
events?
Jones
