Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal
physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold
fusion.
It makes the following unsupported assumptions:
1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy
environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires
energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in
normal physics.
2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron.
The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I
know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states
that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when
energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low.
3. This neutron reacts with elements in the environment causing isotopic
shift without producing radioactive products.
Many of the required isotopes are radioactive with a half life that is
easy to detect. They are not observed.
4. The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley.
The claimed agreement is poor at best.
These are the facts. Of course, it is possible to ignore the facts or be
unaware of the conflict with observation. Nevertheless, I find it
strange that a theory containing so many flaws in logic and conflict
with observation would be considered. Apparently, this shows the
desperation theoreticians have been reduced to.
I have no complaint about discussing theories based on imagination.
However, they should at least be logical and consistent with all
observation, not just those that support the idea. It is even possible
that more than one mechanism is operating and more than one nuclear path
is followed. Nevertheless, I suggest it is a waste of time making
arbitrary assumptions unless these have strong support. Otherwise, this
is just a game of whose imagination and salesmanship is better.
Ed
Jones Beene wrote:
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
