On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 02:05 PM 12/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Yes. He had so many basic facts wrong in his interview with ev-world, it > should have been an embarrassment to NASA. Like all the other fans of Widom > & Larsen, they love to point out how the theory avoids the Coulomb barrier > (in an exothermic reaction), and don't seem to be aware that the energy > barrier to electron capture (an endothermic reaction) is about 10 times > higher. The WLT is its own scam. > > > Am I misreading WL equation (3) ? > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf > > The weak reaction occurs spontaneously if > > Ml * c^2 > Mn * c^2 - Mp * c^2 =~ 1.293 MeV =~ 2.531 Me * c^2 (3) > > Ml (mass of lepton) Me (electron) Mp (proton) Mn (neutron) > > which seems to me to say that a "heavy electron" needs have a mass > greater than 2.531 the rest mass of an electron. > > Or is (3) wrong? Or am I? > You are right, but an electron rest mass is .511 MeV. To make a "heavy electron" requires ... you guessed it ... energy. WL try to mask this need for energy by calling it a heavy electron produced by "local electromagnetic fluctuations", instead of an energetic electron. In the later papers, they are a little more honest about it, but even there, the need for energy is buried among their theoretical equations that their fans skip over. The simple fact is that it takes 780 keV localized on a single atomic site to cause electron-capture by a proton. WL try to explain how that might happen, but they don't admit that you only have to concentrate about 100 keV into a single atomic site to get a useful probability of fusion. So, fusion is much more energetically favored than electron capture by a proton, but you'd never get that message from a WL paper. The Coulomb barrier deceit is used to win over the likes of Krivit and Bushnell, who don't have a background in the field, but could have a certain influence among potential investors to Lattice Energy LLC.
