My first impression of the Widom and Larsen theory was enthusiastic and it seemed to explain many of the observations. We may eventually prove that it is correct, but I see at least one major issue that it poorly explains. What happens to the energetic gammas that are generated by the transitions between states? They seem to gloss over that detail and talk about some unusual mechanism that converts them into infrared radiation. It would be an incredible coincidence for all of these gammas to be consumed in this way. At least a small fraction of them would escape.
Horace Hefner has explained quite convincingly that gammas of the energy that are released would have little problem penetrating the 5 cm shield. Have you had an opportunity to give that issue serious consideration? I find the lack of gamma emissions an issue that has to be understood and explained very well. If this hurdle can be surmounted, I vote for W & L. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 9:46 am Subject: RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag? And let us not forget Occam’s razor. Dr. Ed Storms, in his book, makes a good point that any theory of the mechanism should explain all of the experimental evidence, not just a convenient subset. It seems to me (Occam’s razor) that there is only one truly new phenomenon taking place in this cold fusion effect as opposed to many. After reading some of the proposed theories, I think that Widom and Larsen (W&L) may have at least part of the solution. If we can place some pieces of the puzzle, it may help focus the search for the pieces that still don’t fit. There has been documented cases of tritium and He formation in PF cells. There has been widely documented transmutation. As hard as it is for skeptical physicists to accept the possibility of D+D fusion in solid state, it is even more unthinkable that such high coulombic barrier as a nickel nucleus would have could be crossed by a charged particle. This strikes me as supporting evidence for W&L ultra-low momentum (ULM) neutron theory. W&L hypothesize that ULM neutrons are formed form hydrogen or deuterium (how is a separate issue). A ULM neutron is a relatively stationary neutron. Once it is formed, it will drop into the nearest nucleus almost immediately – as a neutral particle, it is unaffected by the coulomb barrier. The nearest nucleus could be another hydrogen atom causing formation of deuterium. It could be a nickel nucleus giving rise to an isotopic shift in the nickel that ultimately may decay into something else. If deuterium is present, then this process of ULM neutron creation creates them in pairs because deuterium already comes with one neutron – thus you have formed a neutron pair that can fall into a nucleus. There has been evidence of nuclear weight increasing in multiples. These two neutrons could also fall into another hydrogen and make tritium. Now imagine a flood of such ULM neutrons being created. As these get pumped into nearby nuclei, the nuclei will become unstable and decay into daughter elements by fission giving off energy. Whenever a neutron enters a nucleus, the result is an excited nucleus that will need to give off something (as I understand it). If it decays into a proton as at falls to a ground state, it will give off a beta particle and a neutrino to account for the spin. Some nuclei will get a greater and some a lesser number of neutrons. In this neutron rich environment, nearby nuclei may be constantly undergoing neutron transmutation while the nuclei are still excited, or just after fission. Perhaps when lots of ULM neutrons are present, it statistically results in more rapid upswings in nuclear weight that allows the subsequent relaxation to more stable heavy isotopes like copper. It would be an interesting statistical simulator to write. But on startup, the reaction would go from producing no ULM neutrons to a situation where there is a flood of ULM neutrons being created. Between must come the case where there is a low density of ULM neutrons. Perhaps in this case, it is more likely that the fissions occur to lighter weight elements in a process that yields short term gammas, not as prompt radiation, but due to the fissions. This might explain the reported bursts of gamma at the startup and shutdown of the reaction. Also, it is interesting to note that Focardi’s early reports of isotopic analysis of the ash showed substantial generation of light nuclei. Yet Kullander’s analysis of the ash showed Cu and Fe. Possibly in the early days when Focardi reported the results, the catalyst design was not optimized and resulted in lower ULM neutron density. In that case lower neutron density might have biased the reaction to creation of lighter isotopes more likely to fission into lower atomic number; probably also resulting in more gamma. To me it seems that the ULM neutron mechanism is fairly compelling. It is easy to see how it explains formation of deuterium, tritium, helium, and enables the transmutation despite huge coulombic barrier. It means that it is also likely that deuterium and tritium will be found in the gas in the Rossi reaction and creation of these may supply a portion of the heat. I don’t think there has been a report of a test on the gas product of the reaction – I understand that quantitative analysis for deuterium requires specialized equipment. Widom and Larsen have their own theory for how the ULM neutrons form – they posit creation by SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons). I am not convinced of this, but it is an interesting theory and there is some supporting evidence. There is also evidence that suggest possible collective, perhaps BEC, behavior could be implicated in the ULM neutron formation. How these ULM neutrons form could be a harder piece of the theory to identify, but would be key to understanding how to optimize the reaction. There will certainly be interesting reading to come from the theorists. I am looking forward to the flood of analysis that will occur once the stigma of cold fusion research is eliminated by incontrovertible evidence. I don’t know what that evidence will be – will there still be stigma when everyone has an E-cat heating their home? Bob Higgins >David Roberson wrote: >I recall an old phrase attributed to Sherlock Holmes along the lines of “Once >all of the probable answers have been proven wrong, >then it must be the >improbable”. Someone among the vortex will correct my phrase and that is a >good thing. My wording is >incorrect, but that is not the important issue. Horace Hefner has explained quite convincingly that gammas of the energy that are released would have little problem penetrating the 5 cm shield. Have you had an opportunity to give that issue serious consideration? I find the lack of gamma emissions an issue that has to be understood and explained very well. If this hurdle can be surmounted, I vote for W & L. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 9:46 am Subject: RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag? And let us not forget Occam’s razor. Dr. Ed Storms, in his book, makes a good point that any theory of the mechanism should explain all of the experimental evidence, not just a convenient subset. It seems to me (Occam’s razor) that there is only one truly new phenomenon taking place in this cold fusion effect as opposed to many. After reading some of the proposed theories, I think that Widom and Larsen (W&L) may have at least part of the solution. If we can place some pieces of the puzzle, it may help focus the search for the pieces that still don’t fit. There has been documented cases of tritium and He formation in PF cells. There has been widely documented transmutation. As hard as it is for skeptical physicists to accept the possibility of D+D fusion in solid state, it is even more unthinkable that such high coulombic barrier as a nickel nucleus would have could be crossed by a charged particle. This strikes me as supporting evidence for W&L ultra-low momentum (ULM) neutron theory. W&L hypothesize that ULM neutrons are formed form hydrogen or deuterium (how is a separate issue). A ULM neutron is a relatively stationary neutron. Once it is formed, it will drop into the nearest nucleus almost immediately – as a neutral particle, it is unaffected by the coulomb barrier. The nearest nucleus could be another hydrogen atom causing formation of deuterium. It could be a nickel nucleus giving rise to an isotopic shift in the nickel that ultimately may decay into something else. If deuterium is present, then this process of ULM neutron creation creates them in pairs because deuterium already comes with one neutron – thus you have formed a neutron pair that can fall into a nucleus. There has been evidence of nuclear weight increasing in multiples. These two neutrons could also fall into another hydrogen and make tritium. Now imagine a flood of such ULM neutrons being created. As these get pumped into nearby nuclei, the nuclei will become unstable and decay into daughter elements by fission giving off energy. Whenever a neutron enters a nucleus, the result is an excited nucleus that will need to give off something (as I understand it). If it decays into a proton as at falls to a ground state, it will give off a beta particle and a neutrino to account for the spin. Some nuclei will get a greater and some a lesser number of neutrons. In this neutron rich environment, nearby nuclei may be constantly undergoing neutron transmutation while the nuclei are still excited, or just after fission. Perhaps when lots of ULM neutrons are present, it statistically results in more rapid upswings in nuclear weight that allows the subsequent relaxation to more stable heavy isotopes like copper. It would be an interesting statistical simulator to write. But on startup, the reaction would go from producing no ULM neutrons to a situation where there is a flood of ULM neutrons being created. Between must come the case where there is a low density of ULM neutrons. Perhaps in this case, it is more likely that the fissions occur to lighter weight elements in a process that yields short term gammas, not as prompt radiation, but due to the fissions. This might explain the reported bursts of gamma at the startup and shutdown of the reaction. Also, it is interesting to note that Focardi’s early reports of isotopic analysis of the ash showed substantial generation of light nuclei. Yet Kullander’s analysis of the ash showed Cu and Fe. Possibly in the early days when Focardi reported the results, the catalyst design was not optimized and resulted in lower ULM neutron density. In that case lower neutron density might have biased the reaction to creation of lighter isotopes more likely to fission into lower atomic number; probably also resulting in more gamma. To me it seems that the ULM neutron mechanism is fairly compelling. It is easy to see how it explains formation of deuterium, tritium, helium, and enables the transmutation despite huge coulombic barrier. It means that it is also likely that deuterium and tritium will be found in the gas in the Rossi reaction and creation of these may supply a portion of the heat. I don’t think there has been a report of a test on the gas product of the reaction – I understand that quantitative analysis for deuterium requires specialized equipment. Widom and Larsen have their own theory for how the ULM neutrons form – they posit creation by SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons). I am not convinced of this, but it is an interesting theory and there is some supporting evidence. There is also evidence that suggest possible collective, perhaps BEC, behavior could be implicated in the ULM neutron formation. How these ULM neutrons form could be a harder piece of the theory to identify, but would be key to understanding how to optimize the reaction. There will certainly be interesting reading to come from the theorists. I am looking forward to the flood of analysis that will occur once the stigma of cold fusion research is eliminated by incontrovertible evidence. I don’t know what that evidence will be – will there still be stigma when everyone has an E-cat heating their home? Bob Higgins >David Roberson wrote: >I recall an old phrase attributed to Sherlock Holmes along the lines of “Once >all of the probable answers have been proven wrong, >then it must be the >improbable”. Someone among the vortex will correct my phrase and that is a >good thing. My wording is >incorrect, but that is not the important issue.
