Here is my take on the crux of the debate about neutrons in LENR:
Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory several years ago, which
since that time has evolved into a rather logical and insightful
explanation for "many" (but not all, by any means) of the 18 years of
experimental results coming from LENR investigation.
It involves a "subthermal" or cold neutron" and the weak force, but
*without* the need for D-D fusion at all, nor for tunneling through a
high Coulomb barrier. It is consistent with present-day physics
(almost). Widom, Larsen, "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear
Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces."
I should have cited "W-L" in my original posting in this thread several
days ago, wrt the "subthermal neutron" although I do not believe that
they are the first to recognize the possibility.
Anyway, W-L theory is controversial among long-time observers here on
Vortex because it flies in the face of strongly-held prior assumptions,
particularly of D+D fusion being the most relevant M.O., leading to some
considerable acrimony among interested parties ... as witnessed recently
in this thread, where merely being a proponent of W-L apparently makes
one seem "agressive" to those who do not choose to recognize its validity.
Here is a critique of the W-L theory, which (contrary to the writer's
goal -Dr Robert Deck), ends up demonstrating some of the overlooked
weaknesses of that theory instead:
http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheoryDeckCritique.htm
... in which Deck says [with my comments]:
"Finally, despite the reservations expressed above, I conclude that the
mechanism proposed in the Widom-Larsen papers provides a far more
compelling explanation of the anomalous phenomenon observed in
electrolytic chemical cells than previous theories." [he is at fault for
lumping all of these experiments together]. "Unfortunately, this implies
that electrolytic cells using metal hydride electrodes are unlikely to
provide a practical source of energy." [this is another center of
controversy, esp. for those who have a large personal investment is
seeing LENR emerge as the savior of the US, in its "energy crisis"].
RD: "Given that the Widom-Larsen theory is correct, the energy you can
expect to generate in the electrolysis cell is much less than it would
be if the process involved in the cell was the fusion of deuterium
nuclei." [He gives no good rationale or citations for this conclusion].
RD: "This is because in the Widom-Larsen process, the production of
neutrons via the merger of an electron and a proton actually requires
input energy; whereas the capture of neutrons by nuclei produces some
energy in the form of hard gamma photons and beta particles (which gets
turned into heat)" [that much is true]..." therefore, it's not
comparable to that produced in fusion." [This conclusion does not follow
logically, esp if/since the all-important "rate" of the reaction could
be enhanced considerably]
I would like to stress that IF - one allows for the possibility of
several different varieties of LENR, then W-L theory certainly rings
truer and more logical than anything yet put forward to explain that
variety of experiment.
The SPAWAR experiment is indeed in that variety, but many others,
including those of Ed Storms are not.
Edmund Storms wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex
dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is
seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a
sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and
failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires
both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and
deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not
influenced by the boron.
This clarifies why you are negative about boron.
I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits)
are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no
substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with
neutrons?
They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not
consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of
these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way.
There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the
Kowalski pages indicate...
There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for
the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts.
... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons,
and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will
agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any
such cell producing them, no?
If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy
by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are
actually present. Obviously, too few are present to be detected outside
of the cell even while over 10^12 fusion events are taking place within
the cell.
That is to say - if that particular type of cell (SPAWAR) is producing
neutrons, then that type would benefit (energy-wise) from boron, but
this does not mean that other variations of LENR technique are going
to do the same, as they may or may not produce neutrons.
The issue involves the rate of the reactions. Neutrons are only
important if they are generated at a sufficient rate. A few neutron/sec
reacting with boron, while making energy, will be totally invisible and
unimportant, which seems to be the case.
Ed
Jones
