I did recognize, but even so, I am not sure what you mean by energy needed for capture. For example, in large nuclei, the required energy is 0, since k-capture doesn't need to be induced or stimulated.
2011/11/21 Joshua Cude <[email protected]> > In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for > electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's > actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than > what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who > actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error > and took the intended point anyway. > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Joshua, >>> >>> If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body >>> effects that first-order approximations can't capture? >>> >> >> Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't >> actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions. >> >> If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might >> involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't >> capture. >> >> To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise >> implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence >> for a WL-type scenario. >> >> >> >>> >>> Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly >>> rigorous review process? and have some empirical data backing it? >>> >> >> >> I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We >> know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it >> requires "heavy" electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so >> any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture >> Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned >> the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, >> and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL >> without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he >> would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it >> on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the >> theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than >> Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization, >> but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive. >> >> If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL >> theory, I would be interested to see it. >> >> >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
