They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > > can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the > author. > maybe is there a typo in the formulas, > is it corrected in a newer version? > > i confirm the computation > > beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. > > the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... > maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted > > > in > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf > in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m) > and same for 87 > > maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, > and I could not check units coherency > it is a key point, and I hope they check it. > it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. > > note that in > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf > I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter > (8.8e-16m) > while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially > > so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... > his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... > > have to find a professionnal > > > > > > 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> > >> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published >> paper >> >> >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf >> >> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. >> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. >> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. >> >> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one >> million of millions V/m appears. >> Too much, I told myself. >> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is >> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. >> >> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric >> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the >> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents >> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. >> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the >> square root. >> So the term to be evaluated reads: >> >> 4 |e| / 3 a^2 >> >> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is >> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. >> >> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold >> criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied >> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can >> not be produced. >> >> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? >> >> >> Best regards >> >> GDM >> >> >> >
