On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Are you saying that WL -- > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf Introduction, > First Column, up to Eqn (3) -- and Reference 1 -- are wrong? (I don't have > access to Ref 1 or a similar "well known" textbook). > They are highly misleading on the question of energy requirements. When they say an electron wanders into a nucleus can be captured, this is not descriptive of electron capture by a proton. Electron capture can be exothermic for nuclei with an excess of protons, but it is highly endothermic for protons. You need 780 MeV to get electron capture by a proton. They are highly misleading when they say "Note the absence of a Coulomb barrier to such a weak interaction nuclear process. In fact, a strong Coulomb attraction which can exist between an electron and a nucleus helps the nuclear transmutation Eq.(2) proceed." That falls just short (or maybe just beyond) saying that their proposed electron capture by a proton is more energetically favored than deuteron fusion because of the absence of a Coulomb barrier. But in fact electron capture by a proton takes about 10 times more energy than deuteron fusion. For electron capture, you need the full 780 MeV. The energy for fusion is less definite, because it takes place by tunneling. The higher the energy, the higher the probability for a reaction. But the sort of energy aimed for in hot fusion reactors is about 100 keV, but reactions are possible at lower energies. As for the muon part, I thought you were referring to muon-catalyzed fusion when you mentioned them. WL refer to muon capture by protons, which is analogous to their proposed electron capture, except that it is *exothermic*. The idea of requiring a higher electron mass is, I think, their way of obscuring the requirement for an energetic electron -- a very energetic electron. I wouldn't be surprised if these papers are written for the benefit of a very naive audience, to make their completely implausible first step look plausible to potential investors in their Lattice Energy company. It's certainly true that no mainstream nuclear physicist would take the theory seriously, and would not read past that first highly misleading section to get to their lego-like reaction chains. > I agree that (l-) + (p+) = (n) + (vl) (WL 1) > > is probably an approximation of a more detailed quark interaction. (And > that the electron neutrino should possibly be an electron anti-neutrino). > They got the neutrino right. > > > NASA Langley (Bushnell et al) are strongly in favour of WL. > Bushnell has an impressive cv, but his background is in mechanical engineering, and he does not have a phd. His recent ev-world interview, in which he got most of his facts wrong, and demonstrated confusion about the Widom-Larsen theory (if you can call it that), was sadly embarrassing. Here are a few examples: Bushnell says WL involves only weak interactions, but in fact, strong interactions (neutron capture) play an essential role, and while the process involves weak interactions, the energy still comes from strong interactions. He talks about ultra-weak neutrons when WL refer to ultra low momentum neutrons. He says the energy comes from beta decay, but in the H-Ni system it comes mostly from neutron capture (or the consequent gamma rays). He says the Rossi heat generation went on for days, when not a single one lasted even one day, and the public ones for only hours. He says Rossi attributed the energy to WL, when in fact Rossi explicitly says it’s not WL. And so on. It’s sad really. NASA’s been talking about WL since at least 2007, and have been interested in some way in cold fusion from the beginning, and have nothing to show for it. So an organization that can go from primitive rockets to walking on the moon in less than a decade, can’t seem to make any progress on a desktop experiment introduced 22 years ago.
