Dear all, I succeded in fixing the issue during the night, while sleeping... >From the point of view of congruence of figures, a term is missing in Eq. (23), that is the inverse of 4*pi*epsilon-zero (the dielectric constant). In you put this term, then the figure in Eq.(25) turns out to be exact. a is the Bohr radius as stated in Eq. (24). I don't know which unit system the authors are using (maybe atomic units) but since from time to time they switch to MKSA, I think it would have been savier to clearly state it, otherwise the poor reader has to figure out a lot of things. Maybe the "strange" equal sign has a different meaning from what I could imagine. I've still some concerns about the assumptions, but this is another issue, I'll keep you informed if I found other discrepancies. Thank you for your attention
Grazie dell'interesse, Giovanni. 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 > > >
