Hey Vorts,
You're a pretty sharp group...let me throw something out at you...I just
sent this out to the CMNS researchers. I'd like to give you a chance to
participate and respond too.
If you are going to reply to me, sent it privately, not to Vortex.
Steve
Dear CMNS researchers,
The pre-print paper
"<http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf>Theoretical
Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic
Hydride Surfaces" (Version 2) was released by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen
recently to the arXive preprint server. I received an announcement letter,
which I presume they sent to the CMNS community as well, several weeks ago.
I have been collecting related critiques on the theory on this
<http://www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheory.htm>Web page.
I would like your comments and thoughts on various aspects of their theory.
Would you please provide your comments to me on the record so I may use
them to further understand this work as well as to facilitate the related
dialogue?
If some or all of your comments must remain off the record, please send
them as well, but please make such distinctions clear to me.
If my questions are ambiguous, please let me know right away, and I will
provide clarifications.
1. Are there any specific, explicit errors in any of their five papers?
(Please do not speculate on why their theory is or may be wrong. I am
seeking explicit errors.)
2. Richard Garwin has told me that Widom and Larsen are withholding
information that explains the gamma shielding. Aside from that, do Widom
and Larsen appear to be withholding anything else significant, in aspects
of theory or experimental results?
3. I understand that some experimental observations, when taking into
account heat measurements and helium evolution, show that reactions with
23.8 MeV are taking place. This provides a strong indicator that a
variation of the third branch of DD thermonuclear fusion [D+D > 4He (0.08
MeV) + gamma ray (23.77 MeV)] is the responsible mechanism.
a) Do you agree with the reported 23.8 MeV experimental value?
b) If you agree with the reported 23.8 MeV value, is the conclusion of
[D+D > 4He + (23.8 MeV) (heat-lattice)] as the mechanism responsible for
LENR excess heat sufficiently proved by the experiments, or is this
conclusion only one possible interpretation?
c) If you agree with the mechanism, do you know anyone who has been able
to do the complete math to show how this mechanism works?
4. Are there any imaginary assumptions contained in any of their five papers?
5. Do you have any comment on the sentence on page 1, paragraph 1: "It
seems unlikely that the direct cold fusion of two deuterons can be a
requirement to explain at least many of such observations[7] because in
many of these experiments, deuterons were initially absent"? (They cite
Pons who
<http://newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/1989/Nature-HopesContinueToCool19890427.pdf>reported
"'unexpected' production of heat in the ordinary cell." The hydrogen work
of Piantelli, Focardi, Campari, Gabbani, Montalbano and Veronesi is not
cited.)
6. Do you have any comment on the sentence on page 1, paragraph 1:
"Although other workers[10, 11] have previously speculated on a central
role for neutrons in such transmutations, they were unable to articulate a
physically plausible mechanism that could explain high rates of neutron
production under the stated experimental conditions"? (They cite Mizuno
and Kozima. The polyneutron theory of Fisher and the work of Li with weak
interactions are not cited.
7. On page 1, paragraph 3, they write, "The purpose of this work is to
estimate the total rates ... " Do you have any comment on the power and/or
energy rate estimates that they come up with?
8. The paper mentions charged particles in various places. Do you have any
comment about their theory with regard to the experimental results of
charged particle emissions, particularly with regard to the work reported
by Forsley, Tanzella, Roussetski and Lipson at Catania?
9. Do you have any comment on the paper's mention of hot spots and rough
cathode surfaces on page 9, paragraph 2? They cite Szpak, Mosier-Boss,
Gordon, Dea.
10. Do you have any comment on the paper's mention of melting and boiling
metal, the formation of craters and SEM-observed morphology as mentioned
on page 9, paragraph 3? They cite Toriyabe, Mizuno, Ohmori, Aoki, Szpak,
Mosier-Boss, Young, Gordon, Savvatimova, Gavritenkov, Cirillo, Iorio.
(Stringham, Dash and others are not cited.)
11. Do you have any comment on the paper's mention of transmutation via D2
diffusion on page 11, paragraph 4? They cite related experimental results
from Iwamura, Sakano, Itoh, Li, Liu, Tian, Wei, Zhou, Yu. (In
<http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2006WidomA-NuclearAbundancesInMetallicHydride.pdf>paper
number 3, they also cited Miley.)
12. On page 11, paragraph 5, the authors claim that reaction rates are
enhanced through the use of heavy water. Is there any reason why their
theory would not apply to deuterium systems as well as hydrogen systems?
13. Do you have any comment on the paper's mention on page 11, paragraph
6, of electric and magnetic fields, particularly as it may relate to the
SPAWAR paper published in Naturwissenschaften?
14. Do you have any comment regarding the text, "Net excess energy,
actually released and observed at the physical device level ... " from
page 11, paragraph 5?
15. Do you have any comment on the text "Lastly, successful fabrication
and operation of long lasting energy producing devices with high
percentages of nuclear active surface areas will require nanoscale control
over surface composition, geometry and local field strengths" from page
11, paragraph 5?
16. Do you know whether any paper claiming to explain the mechanism for
LENR excess heat has ever appeared in a prominent journal?
17. If this paper is published, would you care to speculate on its impact?
18. Specifically, might this be of major or minor help to the field, if any?
19. Specifically, might this be of major or minor harm to the field, if any?
20. Do you have any comment on their mention of using a "LASER light beam"
on page 1, paragraph 1 and the reference to laser radiation applied to a
cathode surface on page 11, paragraph 4? They cite Iwamura, Itoh, Gotoh,
Toyoda, Violante, Castagna, Sibilia, Paolini, Sarto, Dash and Miley.
(Letts and Cravens are not cited.)
21. Did I fail to ask any other important questions?
Deadline for responses: December 1
Thank you,
Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
