On Jan 31, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson"
<orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the
controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect
to seecontroversy.
An understatement Steven! 8^)
Abd, your analysis of the MeV/He-4 chart looks excellent to me. Nice
job! Too bad your quality of response could not have been
forthcoming from the authors. When I first saw the graph many
months ago I simply assumed there was a misplaced decimal point on
the 3.4 kJ number, the low number. I assumed a very low number, if
real, would have some kind of explanation, because it disproves the
assertion of a constant ratio of energy to 4He. This variability
problem is, however, typical of most all repeated cold fusion
experiments. Some experiments "work" and some don't. Until the
experiments can be better controlled I think it will not be possible
for anyone to credibly assert a fixed excess energy to 4He atom ratio
exists. Also, when first I looked at the chart I immediately
assumed the background line was there merely to show that the He
counts were above background, not that background was *included* in
the counts, which makes the chart essentially meaningless for the
supposed purpose of showing a constant energy/4He *ratio*. Not only
does it obscure the ratios, it shows the total counts to be close to
the background counts, and thus with large error bars. When two
nearly equal counts are subtracted the difference is a smaller number
but the standard deviation becomes larger, so the deviation
proportion becomes very large. If I obtained similar data that
contradicted my own hypothesis and I were forced by my boss to gloss
it over as much as possible I would have done the chart just as the
chart was done - with the background counts included so as to make
the ratios look more constant, and then not publish the actual
numbers. The apparent stonewalling for months by the authors just
makes the situation look all the worse. OTOH, we haven't yet heard
the other side of the story.
As to the rest of the NET story I just simply haven't been able to
follow it carefully. It has long seemed to me, the folks asserting
fixed E/4He ratios (a) believe it and (b) are credible scientists,
but they (c) had formed strong personal opinions that the published
data could not yet strongly support. A fixed energy/4He ratio is a
logical hypothesis in some cases, but there is not a wealth of
consistent and quality data to support the conclusion. In fact the
existence of numerous *heavy element transmutation reports*
contradicts the possibility of a fixed energy/4He ratio in at least
those cases, unless such heavy nuclear reactions are assumed to occur
with absolutely *no* energy production.
Instead of debating whether there is a fixed (23.8 MeV)/4He ratio,
i.e. from:
D(D,gamma)He4 23.8 MeV
it seems to me far more useful to note what is *not* observed in many
experiments, namely 3.27-4.03 MeV energies and corresponding
particles that support the common fusion reactions:
D(D,p)T 4.03 MeV
D(D,n)He3 3.27 MeV
Given that high energy protons and neutrons are not observed in
accordance with the excess heat, and given that the energy observed
in some experiments greatly *exceeds* (4.03) MeV/4He, we can see that
conventional fusion is totally out of the question to explain those
experiments. Something wonderfully useful is happening, provided it
can be harnessed. This is the important information. That there
may be bungling of one kind or another, and emotional wrangling over
theories with high emotional (and in some cases financial)
investments, holds little interest for me.
As with the global warming cover-up email flap - the behavior of a
hand full of individuals does not change the way the universe works.
There is an objective physical reality which is above opinion and
independent of human existence. It would be preferable that everyone
in the field worked harmoniously toward understanding this reality,
and that all human foibles could be set aside. However, if I
expected this to happen I would be even more of a crank than I am.
Controversy and especially reasoned debate is good and necessary.
Debate is indeed a good thing, but personally I don't have time for
extended debate of any kind. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents worth
here and am leaving it at that. I haven't had time to even read and
check out what is being said in various cases.
It's good that errors or possibly misleading text in published
papers is pointed out, that's important.
So true.
However, we don't need more polemic that extrapolates from real or
merely perceived errors into reprehensibility and blame.
If evidence becomes conclusive that there is fraud (illegal) or
deliberate misrepresentation, sure, it's the duty of a journalist
to bring it into the light of public examination.
While I agree any assertions of fraud are unfortunate, the other side
of the coin is that over a period of more than a year, including the
period when Violante and Krivit were in Rome together, you would
think rational people could work out in short order the mysteries of
this seemingly simple chart.
Sloppy work in this, though, is what we saw with Taubes. Excellent
writer who got stuck on a sensationalist theory and did a lot of
damage. He could have done a lot of good if he had been more
careful. He later did very good work with salt and diet. What led
him astray was attachment.
Meanwhile, since Krivit has written about alleged problems with the
heat/helium work, following generally the same line of approach as
Larsen, I'd like to know what Widom-Larsen theory predicts as to
heat/helium relationship. I'm not finding it easy to find.
Personally I would like to hear why the lack of neutron activation in
most all experiments doesn't completely eliminate the WL theory. If
their theory encompasses heavy element transmutation then the WL
neutrons have to penetrate heavy nuclei. The effects of adding
thermal neutrons to nuclei is well known. The decay of the resulting
compound nuclei is well established. Some of these decays have long
half-lives and energetic emissions. There is good reason to expect
slow nuclei penetrate heavy nuclei just fine given the extremely low
neutron velocities at which the Mossbauer effect has been measured.
The peak Mossbauer effect in some cases peaks right on the zero
velocity line. If a di-neutron or ultra-cold neutron can bounce off
heavy atoms then they can be quickly thermalized, and thus no longer
ultra cold. The di-neutron is often described as not bound. If a di-
neutron *is* very weakly bound it should quickly separate into two
neutrons. Neutron activation should be readily detected, especially
in the cases where the cathode was chemically digested prior to
counting.
Real progress is not made in proving a theory until extensive efforts
have been made to disprove it. Because a few experiments consistent
with a theory exist does not prove a theory. In the case of W-L
theory it seems to me the key experiments to do would be those which
are focused on and carefully look for neutron activation.
To save time I'll now just repeat what I have said on all this earlier.
Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of
events required to produce even modest excess heat. Neutrons produce
neutron activation, i.e. make some nuclei radioactive. If neutron
activation were occurring in lattice material elements it would have
been discovered long ago, because neutron activation analysis (NAA)
is a commonly used and well developed technique. The gamma spectra
and delayed gamma production decay curves are well known and used in
delayed gamma NAA. This information is used to sense trace amounts
of elements.
Take a look at the sensitivity of NAA for various elements in
picograms (10^-12 g):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis
Consider the fact that the NAA sensitive elements are not only
present in trace amounts in CF electrodes or electrolytes, they are
*primary ingredients* in some experiments, e.g. Ag, Cl, Cu, Na, Ca,
K, Pt, Ti, S. Also present in large quantities are sometimes: W,
Ta, Th, U, V, Mo, Pb. These things are readily detectable in
microgram order quantities. No matter how slow the neutrons, it is
not credible NA is not happening when fusion and heavy element
transmutation clearly is happening. The gammas should light up
geiger counters even long after electrolysis is over. Further, the
spectra and decay curves would be readily identifiable as to origin.
One of the mysteries of CF is why significant high energy radiation
doesn't happen as a general rule.
Note that this is not to say that NA could not happen in certain
environments, even from deflation fusion. It simply does not happen
to a sufficient degree in typical CF experiments, so is not an
explanation for the *primary* processes that produce the excess heat
or heavy LENR that has been observed.
I think the energy deficit which occurs in CF reactions, necessary to
depress some He* fission channels, and the dissipation of the
reaction enthalpy via multiple low energy gammas, can only occur via
a free electron in the nuclear mix *at the moment of fusion*. What I
have proposed is a means for that happening which might be confirmed
by looking for rare but detectable strange matter decays from CF
cells. This means not only explains the above effects, it explains
how the Coulomb barrier is overcome as well.
If ultra slow neutrons can not move far enough to effect NA then they
can not effect heavy element transmutation LENR with the closest
atoms, the lattice heavy elements. Fusion with a hydrogen atom that
is typically even further away than the nearby lattice heavy elements
is then also precluded.
CF is known to happen below the surface, within the lattice. Whether
it also happens on the surface due to collective surface oscillations
as suggested by Windom and Larsen is immaterial. An explanation of CF
needs to cover all observations, not just a select few.
The distance between lattice sites, i.e. the distance from the
potential well an absorbed hydrogen nucleus occupies (a lattice site)
and the adjacent potential well another hydrogen atom can occupy, is
less than the distance between a lattice site and the adjacent
lattice atoms.
Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in less than
a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about 10
hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can make it 3.5
Å [ note typo fixed here, said 0.5 Å previously ] into a nearby
hydrogen nucleus they can make it 1.79 Å into Pd or another lattice
element just as well. There are no other nuclei in the way, so cross
sections are not even an issue. Heavier atoms are not all that much
bigger than light ones because atomic radius does not grow much with
atomic number, e.g. radii in angstroms: Pd 1.79, Au 1.79, Ni 1.62, Li
2.05, K 2.77, Al 1.82, Cu 1.57, Pb 1.81. If fusion is occurring at a
rate sufficient to account for excess heat then NA should occur at a
huge rate also, one that could not possibly be missed.
Heavy LENR is known to occur, has been observed, and thus requires
just as much explanation as other CF results. The lack of high
energy radiation signatures for both CF and heavy transmutation LENR,
both of which are known to occur both very close to and below the
surface, requires an explanation. The unusual branching ratios
observed require an explanation. The presence of ultra-slow neutrons
in the lattice provides no explanation for these things.
Gammas from NA should be readily observed from heavy element
transmutation if it is due to neutrons. The presence of hypothesized
high mass electrons on a cathode surface, near surface hydrogen
fusion reactions, were suggested to absorb fusion gammas in less than
a nanometer. This explanation can not account for gamma absorption
near heavy elements. NA gammas should be readily detectable.
I think the presence of a free electron in the nucleus at the time of
fusion is the logical explanation of all these things, how the
Coulomb barrier is breached, why high energy particles and gammas are
not seen from hydrogen fusion reactions, why the branching ratios are
so skewed, and why almost no signature, including heat, is seen
corresponding to nuclear mass changes from heavy lattice element
transmutation. How this is proposed to happen is described in "Cold
Fusion Nuclear Reactions" at:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
